Techdirt

For decades the U.S. newswires have been peppered with stories where somebody bought a house after being told by their ISP it had broadband access, only to realize the ISP didn't actually serve that address. Generally, the homeowner then realizes they have to spend a stupid amount of money to pay the local telecom monopoly to extend service.. or move again. Time after time, local ISPs are found to be flat out lying when they claim they can offer an essential utility (broadband), and the home buyer has little recourse thanks to the slow, steady erosion of U.S. state and federal telecom regulatory oversight.So yeah, one problem is that we continue to lobotomize our state and federal telecom regulators under the bullshit claim that this results in some kind of free market Utopia (you'd think everyday reality would have cured folks of this belief by now, but nope). The other underlying culprit has generally been America's notoriously shitty broadband maps, which let regional monopolies obscure the patchy coverage, slow speeds, and high prices created by regional monopolization so American policymakers can more easily pretend none of this is a problem.State telecom consumer protection is generally feckless, with the entirety of telecom policy in most corrupt state legislatures directly dictated by AT&T or Comcast. Washington State continues to be one of just a few exceptions. In the last few years the state has killed a protectionist law designed to hamstring community broadband, passed its own net neutrality laws in the wake of federal apathy, and has actually stood up to the longstanding telecom industry practice of ripping off consumers with bullshit fees. Now, the state is also passing a new law requiring that home sales disclose whether the home actually has broadband:

Do you want cheer fucked? Because this is how you get cheer fucked.No less than the highest court in the land said the off-campus speech of students is subject to the First Amendment, not the whims of school administrators who feel ways about online stuff. A cheerleader expressing her displeasure with school related activities posted a litany of f-bomb-laden complaints to Instagram, resulting in her being summarily dismissed from the cheer team. The Supreme Court said "fuck cheer" is protected speech, no matter how school administrators felt about it.Students' constitutional rights don't disappear just because they're students. This point has been driven home several times by courts, most famously by the Supreme Court's 1969 Tinker decision, which stated:

Merge your creativity with science as you build exciting circuits using Circuit Scribe's conductive ink pen, sweet magnetic modules, and plain old printer paper. By placing the paper over a steel sheet, included in every kit, your paper becomes the base for blinking lights, beeping buzzers, and whirling motors. Circuit Scribe's DIY kit gives you everything you need in one convenient package, including a pen, modules, and an easy-to-follow instructional booklet. The basic kit is on sale for $33, the super kit for $55, and the ultra kit for $69.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Senator Richard Blumenthal seems to fill our pages with every possible moral panic about an internet he doesn't understand, but on which he's made a name over-reacting to. This goes back over a decade, honestly, since well before he was even a Senator.For the last few months he's been really ramping up the moral panic about TikTok, complaining about various trends on TikTok and demanding execs testify before him. The latest is that he has sent a letter to TikTok's CEO, Shou Zi Chew, demanding an explanation of how a kid in Connecticut (Blumenthal's state) was burned by messing up a science experiment called the "Whoosh Bottle Experiment." Lots of news sites -- and Blumenthal in his letter -- imply that "The Whoosh Bottle Experiment" is some sort of TikTok thing.

Senator Richard Blumenthal seems to fill our pages with every possible moral panic about an internet he doesn't understand, but on which he's made a name over-reacting to. This goes back over a decade, honestly, since well before he was even a Senator.For the last few months he's been really ramping up the moral panic about TikTok, complaining about various trends on TikTok and demanding execs testify before him. The latest is that he has sent a letter to TikTok's CEO, Shou Zi Chew, demanding an explanation of how a kid in Connecticut (Blumenthal's state) was burned by messing up a science experiment called the "Whoosh Bottle Experiment." Lots of news sites -- and Blumenthal in his letter -- imply that "The Whoosh Bottle Experiment" is some sort of TikTok thing.

For decades, like clockwork, somebody at Dish or DirecTV will try and float the idea that the two satellite TV companies should merge. Usually they'll do this by seeding the idea at trusted news outlets that additional consolidation is just what the U.S. media sector needs. Granted regulators have always balked at the idea of a Dish and DirecTV merger, given that it would only reduce competition in the pay TV space, leading to more layoffs, more price hikes, and even worse customer service (cable TV customer service is among the worst in any industry anywhere thanks to this "growth for growth's sake" mindset).Like clockwork, somebody involved in the deal-making has leaked word of yet another attempt to merge the two companies to the New York Post:

In the video game space, it has become commonplace to see creators freak out over "rip-offs" and "clones" of their games when the targets of their ire are actually not rip-offs or clones at all. This typically comes down to the all to common confusion over whether you can own or protect ideas versus specific expression. Typically in these stories, it turns out someone is complaining that they're seeing a similar idea in other games, whether it's first person shooters that share common features, the explosion of battle royale games, or even just artwork.Which brings us to Wordle, a browser-based game that I gleefully enjoy telling my fellow Techdirt readers I have not played. However you feel about the game, it's notable in that its creator has been adamant about not monetizing the game, nor has he bothered registering any copyright or trademark for it. Between that and the game's popularity, there is a ton of goodwill there, which may explain why the world smacked down another person's attempt to actually clone (basically) the game into a mobile app that then required paid subscriptions for all of the features.

Summary:In the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections in the United States, progressive voters in seven competitive races in the Midwest were targeted with a series of Facebook ads urging them to vote for Green Party candidates. The ads, which came from a group called America Progress Now, included images of and quotes from prominent progressive Democrats including Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with the implication that these politicians supported voting for third parties.The campaign raised eyebrows for a variety of reasons: two of the featured candidates stated that they did not approve the ads, nor did they say or write the supposed quotes that were run alongside their photos, and six of the candidates stated that they had no connection with the group. The office of Senator Sanders asked Facebook to remove the campaign, calling it “clearly a malicious attempt to deceive voters.” Most notably, an investigation by ProPublica and VICE News revealed that America Progress Now was not registered with the Federal Election Commission nor was any such organization present at the address listed on its Facebook page.In response to Senator Sanders’ office, and in a further statement to ProPublica and VICE, Facebook stated that it had investigated the group and found no violation of its advertising policies or community standards.Two years later, during the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election, an investigation by the Washington Post revealed a “troll farm”-type operation directed by Rally Forge, a digital marketing firm with connections to Turning Point Action (an affiliate of the conservative youth group Turning Point USA), in which multiple teenagers were recruited and directed to post pro-Trump comments using false identities on both Facebook and Twitter. This revelation resulted in multiple accounts being removed by both companies, and Rally Forge was permanently banned from Facebook.As it turned out, these two apparently separate incidents were in fact closely connected: an investigation by The Guardian in June of 2021, aided in part by Facebook whistleblower Sophie Zhang, discovered that Rally Forge had been behind the America Progress Now ads in 2018. Moreover, Facebook had been aware of the source of the ads and their deceptive nature, and of Rally Forge’s connection to Turning Point, when it determined that the ads did not violate its policies. The company did not disclose these findings at the time. Internal Facebook documents, seen by The Guardian, recorded concerns raised by a member of Facebook’s civic integrity team, noting that the ads were “very inauthentic” and “very sketchy.” In the Guardian article, Zhang asserted that “the fact that Rally Forge later went on to conduct coordinated inauthentic behavior with troll farms reminiscent of Russia should be taken as an indication that Facebook’s leniency led to more risk-taking behavior.”Company considerations:

The state of Illinois continues to provide more protection than the US Constitution. Its privacy laws exceed what has been determined to be "reasonable" violations of privacy by decades of court precedent. This has allowed it to go after companies for violating state laws, even when the collections being prosecuted would likely be legal under the Supreme Court-created "Third Party Doctrine."State law allowed Facebook to be successfully sued over its facial recognition program -- one that detects faces and attempts to match them to Facebook profiles to "tag" photos with names of account holder's "friends." This resulted in a $550 million settlement from Facebook -- a relative bargain considering the original asking price was $35 billion.It also has allowed the state to move forward with its lawsuit against odious facial recognition tech provider, Clearview. Clearview sells access to its database and AI to government agencies for the alleged purpose of identifying criminal suspects. The AI -- finally independently tested years after its debut -- appears to be fairly solid. But its 10 billion image (and counting) database is composed of images and personal info scraped from thousands of websites and social media platforms. According to the state of Illinois, this collection violates state privacy laws because Illinois residents are not informed of this collection, nor are they given any opportunity to opt in or out.Third parties aren't the only ones availing themselves of data harvested from the web. Government agencies are taking advantage of massive collections assembled by data brokers. The assumption by law enforcement is that no warrant is needed to obtain location info and identifying information from third parties because there's no expectation of privacy in information shared with apps, websites, and service providers.It should be clear that's likely not acceptable in Illinois where state law regulates these collections to ensure end users are protected (at least somewhat) by mandates requiring notification and consent. Nonetheless, law enforcement persists in accessing this data, assuming their actions aren't illegal even if the collections they're accessing have been illegally obtained.That's going to change. A new law that went into effect at the beginning of this year says Illinois law enforcement can no longer access this information without a warrant.

Register now for our online event featuring Rep. Zoe Lofgren »Next week is the ten year anniversary of the famed "Internet Blackout Day" in which internet users, together with activists, and some internet companies, spoke up together and told Congress that passing the Stop Online Piracy Act (and the Senate Companion, the Protect IP Act), would do tremendous damage to the internet. Lots of organizations are hosting events and doing other things to commemorate that momentous occasion -- but also trying to channel that spirit towards building a better internet.And that includes us at Techdirt. We're going to be running a new Techdirt Greenhouse series with reflections from a bunch of people who were involved in the original fight, both looking back at what happened ten years ago, but also what's happened in the intervening decade, and what it means for the internet, for activism, for tech policy, and for users of the internet going forward.On top of that, we're going to be hosting a live (virtual) event on January 26th at 1pm PT, with a fireside chat between myself, and one of the main heroes of the stop SOPA movement: Rep. Zoe Lofgren. The event will also include breakout discussions and a chance to network and connect with others interested in tech policy and the future of the internet. Register now to join the event!

As you'll recall, at the end of 2020, the FTC filed an antitrust case against Facebook. Last summer, the district court dismissed the case, noting that the complaint was "legally insufficient," and didn't really back up its central claims. Based on that, the FTC went back to the drawing board and filed an amended complaint last August. As we noted, the amended complaint was better than the first one -- which was heavy on narrative, but little on support to back it up. The amended complaint had more in it, though we still felt that the market definition was odd, and some of the complaint seemed to undermine other parts of it.Either way, Facebook again asked the court to dismiss it, but this time, they're letting the case move forward. Basically, the court says that on a second pass, the FTC has actually provided at least some support of the central arguments in the complaint:

The Complete 2022 AWS Training Bundle has 6 courses to help you on your way to becoming an AWS IT professional. Courses cover Cloud, SysOps, DevOps, Big Data, and more. It's on sale for $59.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

During the COVID crisis the FCC launched the Emergency Broadband Benefit (EBB program), which gives lower income Americans a $50 ($75 for those in tribal lands) discount off of their broadband bill. Under the program, the government gives money to ISPs (not exactly ideal given the industry's history of fraud), which then dole out discounts to users if they qualify. But (surprise), many found that big ISPs erected cumbersome barriers to actually getting the service, or worse, actively exploited the sign up process to force struggling low-income applicants on to more expensive plans once the initial contract ended. Very on brand.The program was recently renamed the Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) and made permanent via the infrastructure bill, albeit at a reduced discount rate of $30 a month (still $75 on tribal lands). And because the reboot requires new rules, the FCC has proposed tightening up the rules surrounding the program to ensure the large predatory ISPs don't exploit it to make an extra buck. More specifically, the FCC says ISPs will be required to offer the discounts across all tiers, including legacy and "grandfathered" (older, possibly cheaper plans that they may not sell any more) plans:

Poland -- like far too many countries -- has a Pegasus problem. The highly intrusive (and highly effective) phone malware sold by Israel's NSO Group for the ostensible purpose of tracking down terrorists and other deadly criminals has been observed (yet again) being deployed to track government critics and political opponents.When Apple announced its lawsuit against NSO Group for targeting iPhone users, it also announced plans to notify users who had been targeted by NSO spyware. The first beneficiary of this notification program was a Polish prosecutor who was apparently targeted for trying to investigate election irregularities.That initial notification opened the floodgates. The Polish government had access to the spyware and was deploying it for reasons entirely unrelated for the reasons it stated when purchasing it.

Back in October, I noted the huge amounts of money pouring into music copyrights, largely driven by the global rise of online streaming. Since then, that trend has continued, most notably with Bruce Springsteen's sale of his recordings and songwriting catalogue to Sony, for a rumored $550 million. As I pointed out in the post, one of the problems with this "financialization" of the sector is that music copyrights become completely divorced from the original creativity that lies behind them. They become just another asset, like gold, petroleum or property. On the Open Future blog, Paul Keller has pointed out a plausible – and terrifying – consequence of this shift.As Keller notes, the more the owners of copyrights become detached from the creative production process, the less they will care about the nominal balances within the system. In particular, the central quid pro quo of copyright – that a government monopoly is granted to creators for a limited period, after which the work enters the public domain – will be perceived simply as an obstacle to greater profits. The financialization of the music world means that an artist's ability to use the public domain as a foundation for future creativity, or to take advantage of copyright exceptions, will be of no interest to the corporations and private equity firms that are only concerned about the value of their own assets. For Keller, the end-game is clear:

The New York Police Department is complaining about having to do work again. The New York Post reports officers are unhappy that they're required to do a little bit more paperwork for every stop, regardless of whether the stop results in a citation or arrest.

For years we've talked about the infamous Facebook lawsuit against Power.com. As you may recall, this was a key CFAA case against a site, Power.com, that was trying to create a social media aggregator dashboard -- in which you could login through a single interface, and access content from and post to a variety of different social media platforms. Facebook alleged that this was a form of hacking -- claiming it was "unauthorized access" to Facebook. This was even though there was no actual unauthorized access. Individual users gave Power their login credentials, so everything was completely authorized. After years of winding through the courts, unfortunately, it was decided that this was a violation of the CFAA, mainly because Facebook sent a cease & desist letter, and somehow going against that now made it "unauthorized." In my mind, this is one of the biggest reasons why Facebook has much less competition today than it otherwise might -- because it used the CFAA and cases against Power.com to create a "you can check in, but you can't check out" kind of data arrangement. Things like Power.com were an empowering system that might have made people much less reliant on Facebook -- but it was killed.In an age now where people are increasingly talking about the importance of data portability and interoperability, something like Power.com would be a useful tool.So, it's interesting (and a little disturbing) to see that Facebook's new corporate identity, Meta, has now sued another company for data scraping. It is notable that in this case, the defendant, Social Data Trading Ltd., is a lot less sympathetic a character than Power.com was. And -- more importantly -- Facebook is not using the CFAA this time (other cases have suggested that what Facebook got away with in the Power case it would no longer be able to get away with under that law). However, it is trying to use California's state law equivalent of the CFAA. And now matter how you look at it, it's still at least a little worrisome that Facebook (ok, whatever, Meta) believes it has a legal right to stop scraping of otherwise public data.So first, Social Data Trading is not sympathetic. It appears to be a sketchy service in its own right, scraping data on social media users to sell "in-depth insights into the demographics and psychographics of influencers and their audiences." Meta put in place some technical blocks to try to stop the company from scraping (which seems like fair game), but SDT would then just register new domains and continue scraping. Facebook had apparently tried to stop a predecessor company to Social Data Trading called "Deep.Social," though the complaint seems to imply that SDT is just a reworking of Deep.Social.The more difficult issue here is that part of the way that SDT did its scraping was by creating fake accounts on Facebook and Instagram, and then using those fake accounts to scrape the data. And that does bring things into a legally more complex area, but also gives Meta the route around to go after these guys without using the CFAA.At issue is that when you create one of those accounts... you agree to the terms of service, and those terms say you can't use the site for "collecting information in an automated way." Thus, the core argument here is that it's a breach of contract case, and that the SDT folks agreed to the terms and then broke them by using their fake accounts to scrape.

Politicians -- those motivated by the notion of "doing something" -- want to end encryption. They don't want this to affect their communications and data security. But they don't see the harm in stripping these protections from the general public. Often, the argument is nothing better than "only criminals want end-to-end encryption," something they trot out as a truism despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.But these politicians (and government officials) are cowards. They refuse to call a backdoor a backdoor. They come up with all sorts of euphemisms while pretending compliance with proposed laws won't result in the creation of backdoors that can be exploited by everyone, not just the "good guys." They also deploy other euphemisms to attack encryption that protects millions of members of the public, referring to good encryption as "warrant-proof" or "military-grade." Those terms never survive examination, but the narrative persists because most members of the public have no interest in closely examining falsehoods uttered by governments.The UK government has expressed an unhealthy determination to undermine encryption for years now. It has the fanciest of plans to undo protections enjoyed by UK residents for reason ranging from "the children" to "the terrorists." The underlying intent never changes even if the name on the office doors do. Regulators come and go but the desire remains. Even the bills get renamed, as though a different shade of lipstick would make the UK's anti-encryption pig any more desirable.Rebranding from "Online Harms" to "Online Safety" only changed the tablecloths in the Titanic's dining room. The UK government wants encryption dead. But presumably "safety" sounds better than "harms," especially when the government affirmatively wants to harm the safety of millions of UK residents.The Internet Society has taken a look at the revamped and rebranded bill and has delivered a report [PDF] that explains exactly where on the Internet doll the UK government plans to engage in inappropriate touching. There's no mention of backdoors or broken encryption, but complying with the law means possibly doing both.

The Media Mac Bundle has 4 apps to help you take your photos and videos to the next level. GlueMotion is designed to reduce the stress associated with creating time-lapse movies by automating image correction and deflickering as it works to create an end result that’s smooth as silk. SnapMotion is the perfect tool to extract images from videos with the best quality possible. PhotoRevive restores the colors of your black and white photographs with ease. MetaImage is the ultimate tool to read, write and edit images metadata. The bundle is on sale for $20.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Like lots of other places around the globe, it appears that Israel is considering a dangerous social media censorship bill, that would force websites to remove content. It does have some safeguards, but, basically, if law enforcement claims a crime was committed via the publication of some content, a judge can issue a takedown order:

Much of last year was dominated by talk about how there was a "new, bipartisan coalition" of folks interested in "reining in big tech" via "antitrust reform." The GOP in particular, which has, for forty years, largely embraced and encouraged monopolization and consolidation at every turn (see telecom as a shining example) was repeatedly portrayed as "very serious about antitrust reform this time." At least as it applied to "big tech." There are countless U.S. business sectors where monopolies and anticompetitive behaviors are rampant that Congress simply couldn't give any less of a shit about, whether it's banking, health care, telecom, airline travel, or energy.For years, experts pointed out that U.S. antitrust reform had grown toothless and frail, our competition laws needed updating in the Amazon era, and "are consumers happy?" (the traditional consumer welfare standard) doesn't actually measure all aspects of potential harm in complex markets. You can look to U.S. sectors like telecom to see the work that needed doing. Good news! We were, the Congress, the press, and the punditry insisted, entering a bold new era of "antitrust reform" with "bipartisan support." At least in terms of "big tech." Why only big tech? Who knows! Stop asking questions.Guess what? None of the rhetoric over the last two years amounted to absolutely anything. Yeah, we did see some limited, narrow, chopped up proposals for scattered reform of select tech companies, but as we noted at the time many of those had serious problems or (again) weirdly ignored other business sectors like telecom or banking. Despite all the talk about how Congress was "serious this time" about antitrust reform, it turns out that they weren't, actually, and time is running out to get anything done ahead of the midterms:

You all know about Olive Garden. It's the chain of... oh, let's just play along and call them Italian restaurants that have unlimited breadsticks and names of supposedly Italian offerings that appear to have gotten their names by inputting a bunch of Italian food words into a dilapidated AI program that combines them into a series of unholy dish-names. Sure, there's "Shrimp Scampi", but there is also "Five Cheese Ziti Al Forno" and "Lasagna Fritta". I kid of course, but the chain and its parent company, Darden, have also found their way onto Techdirt in the past by being overly aggressive when it comes to trademark enforcement. For instance, Darden attempted to shut down the site allofgarden.com, which was dedicated to tongue in cheek reviews of the chain's dishes. Darden later apologized for that, blaming some kind of legal bot that crawls for potential trademark infringements on the brand.We'll have to see if something similar happens here, as Darden is now going after a site that jokingly sells NFTs to "own" individual Olive Garden locations and/or simply get NFT tokens for free unlimited breadsticks. The site, nonfungibleolivegardens.com has actually sold out of individual locations, but points to a secondary market. The breadstick tokens are, as are their real life counterparts, free and unlimited. Olive Garden's imagery and name appear all over the site, naturally, and the site's Twitter account confirmed that the site's host, OpenSea, had received a takedown demand (the recipients incorrectly call it a "DMCA" takedown, even though it's about trademarks).

In case you missed it by doing literally anything else, January 9th was National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day! The event was apparently created in response to the public's reaction to a white police officer killing an unarmed black man.

On Friday we got around to posting an article about the very, very strange case of a shell company with almost no presence filing a DMCA 512(h) subpoena to Twitter seeking the identity of the person behind the @CallMeMoneyBags account, that has a history of mocking wealthy private equity bros. The subpoena came from an operation called Bayside Advisory, which registered the copyrights for a few images that MoneyBags had posted to the Twitter account, all typical social media photos, showing a young woman. The MoneyBags account implied that the woman in the photos was the mistress of a billionaire, Brian Sheth.The copyright on the photos was registered after these tweets, by this operation Bayside Advisory, which doesn't seem to have any actual presence, and had never registered any other copyrights until these photos. The registration says that the "photographer" on all of the photos is a woman named Brenda Diaz. What was just pointed out to me, however, is that there is very, very strong evidence that Diaz is not, in fact, the photographer, but rather the woman in the photos. I have now seen other social media accounts from the person and they all involve some variation on the name Brenda Diaz. So that at least raises some questions about the validity of the registration itself.Twitter sought to quash the subpoena noting, accurately, that it seemed quite obviously to be an attempt to intimidate the author of the MoneyBags account. Bayside, for its part, claimed quite explicitly, that it had nothing to do with Sheth (though it has said nothing about Diaz). The court ruling we wrote about on Friday (which came right before New Years), said that Twitter had to cough up the name. Back in the fall, the court had told Twitter to alert the person behind the MoneyBags account that they should file something with the court to help the court work out its fair use analysis.While Twitter says it emailed the info to the email address it had on file it's unclear if the person behind the MoneyBags account ever saw it (the account stopped posting back in October). Either way, MoneyBags did not submit any filing on their behalf, and so the magistrate judge said that since they haven't made the case for why the posting of the photos was fair use, the court won't say that they're fair use, and therefore Twitter must cough up the name.Soon after I posted that story, Twitter asked the court to reconsider. The summary of the filing is quite clear:

The Australian government gave itself encryption-breaking powers at the end of 2018. The law went into effect January 2019. The beneficiaries of the law immediately swept in to reap the rewards. Demands for "exceptional access" required tech companies to break encryption upon request to hand over communications and data sought by law enforcement and security agencies.These efforts began well ahead of any determination as to whether demands for access were lawful or even feasible. In some sense, the requests were lawful simply because a new law had been hurried through to make them lawful. But there were concerns being belatedly raised that some government activity fell outside the broad scope of TOLA, a law whose own name (Telecommunications and Other Legislations Amendment) suggests the government that passed it has no idea what it might encompass.The Australian Federal Police utilized the new powers to partner with the FBI to run a backdoored encrypted chat service marketed exclusively to suspected criminals. Somehow, customers failed to sniff out the ruse, leading to thousands of arrests stemming from millions of intercepted messages. Whether or not this was entirely lawful (even under TOLA) remains to be seen. The thousands of prosecutions should lead to dozens, if not hundreds, of evidence suppression attempts, which will put TOLA's assumed powers to the legal test.Three years after implementation, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) has completed its review of the law. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Committee has found that the law is lawful. However, it may be a little under-supervised.

Last fall, we had three separate articles about the horrific problems of the SHOP SAFE Act -- one by me, one by Cathy Gellis, and a massive one by Prof. Eric Goldman. The bill is extraordinarily bad, but it's extraordinarily bad in a somewhat sneaky manner, which we'll get to in a moment.Unfortunately, we're hearing buzz from DC that the House is thinking about shoving the SHOP SAFE Act into the massive United States Innovation and Competition Act, also known as the Endless Frontier Act. The Endless Frontier Act/USICA has a bold and valuable goal: having the US invest in innovation, science, and technology infrastructure. This is, actually, really important, and it's an area where the US has led in the past and has not been doing as much leading recently.The general structure of the bill is pretty smart, and really is focused on filling important gaps that can lead to much greater innovation and commercialization of important innovations. But, with such a large bill, some are always going to see opportunities to bolt on their own pet ideas -- both good and bad. And SHOP SAFE seems to be one of the potentially dangerous ideas being considered.Again, I recommend reading Eric Goldman's thorough takedown of the bill, but I wanted to give a brief description of why it's so dangerous, and why it requires understanding a few different things that most people will miss. The bill is framed as a way to protect people against counterfeit goods online. And that sounds like a good thing. But there are a few major problems: first, is that the "threat" of counterfeit goods online is way, way, way overblown. Second, is the method by which this tries to attack that "problem." And third is the wider impact that this law would then have on the internet. It's important to understand all three of these things, so let's break them down bit by bit.The problem is massively exaggerated:First up, while big brand companies like to insist that counterfeiting is a huge problem -- and one that puts people at risk -- there is little evidence to support this. While it's hidden away and rarely talked about, when the Department of Homeland Security put out data on counterfeits, it could find very, very few that actually impacted health and safety. That's not to say the number is zero, but the entire industry loves to insist that because there have been a very small number of dangerous counterfeit products out there, they can state that all counterfeiting is a health and safety issue (it gets even worse when the copyright industries like to lump "counterfeit" together with "copyright infringement" to pretend that little Bobby downloading a song is a health and safety risk).Even outside of the question of "safety," the simple fact is that counterfeiting is not nearly as big a problem as the industry would have you believe. A GAO report noted that the industry has massively exaggerated the amount of counterfeiting that happens. Even then, in the situations where it does happen, there's a question of the supposed "harm" to the original producer. The general argument is that counterfeiting harms the originator's brand by (1) tricking consumers into purchasing a non-authentic version when they would have spent money on the real version and (2) then delivering an inferior knock-off product that harms the brand, as the buyer is less-than-impressed by the quality of the knockoff.Again, however, actual evidence suggests that this narrative is rarely true. Instead, multiple studies have shown that buyers of counterfeit goods buy them as an aspirational purchase. That is, they know that they're buying knockoffs, but they buy it because of that fact. They can't afford the authentic version, so couldn't buy it at that moment (so no loss), and are buying it because they still want to connect with the brand. Indeed, that study showed that many people who buy knockoffs later buy the real thing when they can afford it. In other words, hurting the counterfeit market could actually harm the authentic market as well, as it is often a "stepping stone" purchase, allowing users to connect with the brand before they can purchase the real thing.So, already, we've seen that the underlying "necessity" for a bill to attack the sales of knockoffs online is thin, at best.The method by which SHOP SAFE works will do tremendous damage to online marketplaces and innovation:To understand this one requires a bit of background knowledge. As you may know, Section 230 has an intellectual property exemption (section (e)(2)), which was put there at the demand of Hollywood, so that it could put in place its own, much more stringent, DMCA takedown process. Indeed, in 1996, when Section 230 became law, Hollywood was in the midst of a bit of policy laundering. The Clinton's IP czar, Bruce Lehman, had a plan all along to force the terrible DMCA regime on the US. In the summer of 1995, he published a whitepaper with the outline of a DMCA liability regime, encouraging Congress to pass a law. Congress did introduce a law, but failed to pass it. He later flat out admit that he did an "end run around Congress" by going to Geneva in early 1996 to get WIPO to put together a treaty that more or less required all signatories to implement a DMCA-like structure. That done, he then went back to Congress, and told them it was now obligated to pass the DMCA to comply with "international obligations."So that process was happening just as the CDA was being crafted, and someone realized that 230 would undermine Lehman's DMCA plans if it applied to copyright. So (e)(2) was added to exempt "intellectual property." But no one really considered how that might impact other types of intellectual property, such as trademark. As we've discussed, this has lead to much mischief from companies (and mainly law firms) which look to hold third party marketplaces liable for counterfeit or trademark infringing goods on their sites. Sometimes, they've even sought to go after retailers for people reselling legitimate items they've bought, because the companies think they should be able to control every possible sale, including resales.The biggest, and most important, case regarding this was one that the jeweler Tiffany filed against eBay in 2004, claiming that because users on eBay sold some infringing items, eBay should be held liable. Again, without Section 230, eBay couldn't just get the case immediately dismissed. Instead, it went on for over six years before the judicial system established a precedent protecting online marketplaces. It's not as strong as Section 230, but it more or less says that because eBay tries to remove infringing products, and has an active program in which it works with brands to find and remove infringing/counterfeit works, you can't hold the company liable for missing some stuff. That ruling has been in place for over a decade now, and has served the internet well. It's kind of like a Section 230 protection that can apply to marketplaces with regards to trademark (though it's not as clean or clear as 230).But the big product companies have always hated it, because they want to control everything. They want to force all unauthorized sales (including resales of authentic products) off of these marketplaces. And, if they can't do that, they want the giant marketplaces -- the Amazons and eBays of the world -- to just pay them many, many millions of dollars.So that brings us back around to the problems of SHOP SAFE. It flat out overturns the Tiffany/eBay decision, and says that unlike that precedent, online marketplaces should be considered de facto liable. There is a long, extremely onerous, and nearly impossible list of things that you need to do to get out of that default state of being liable for any infringing product on your site. Basically, the default state for all online marketplaces (and this is defined so broadly that it will sweep up tons of sites you wouldn't think of as "marketplaces"), will be that they are "contributory" infringers.This will wreak all sorts of havoc. First off, it will massively limit where people can buy and sell things online. Over the pandemic, I've become active in buying and selling used books via a couple of Facebook groups and independent forums and news groups, that focus on the buying and selling of a niche category of books. It's been great for me, because most of the books bought and sold through these groups are unfindable anywhere else. Under this bill, it seems like those groups would all need to shut down -- or face absolutely crippling liability and risk.Basically, the only "marketplaces" that could possibly survive would be the very biggest -- the eBays and Amazons of the world. And, even then, in order to avoid liability, eBay and Amazon would both significantly change how those forums operate, and they'd still face crippling liability because of the structure of the bill. I'll quote Eric Goldman's summary here because it's so important:

Buy 1 Get 1 Free! Each order comes with 2 drones: 1 Alpha Z PRO Ultra HD Dual Camera Drone and 1 Flying Fox Ultra HD Dual Camera Drone. Both drones are equipped with a 4K front camera and a 720P bottom camera. The Alpha Z PRO comes in a sleek black color while the Flying Fox comes in a clean silver finish. Both drones will help you capture great shots from above with ease and in style. The drones are on sale for $175.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Last fall we wrote about how Chinese officials were looking to remove the "Pillar of Shame," a sculpture by artist Jens Galschiøt that commemorates China's massacre of pro-democracy demonstrators at Tiananmen Square in 1989. The sculpture was erected at the University of Hong Kong in 1997, and now that China has been wiping out every last bit of freedom in Hong Kong, the statue has been targeted as well. In our post last fall, we noted that (1) Galschiøt was threatening legal action if the statue is damaged, and (2) activists were making 3D scans of the sculpture so that it can be replicated.Of course, while Galschiøt can (without much leverage) threaten legal action against China for removing the statue, some realized that the unfortunate state of copyright law today means he might also threaten legal action against those making replicas and copies from those 3D images. Thankfully, Galschiøt himself recognizes how problematic that is, and after receiving a bunch of requests has signed official paperwork relinquishing his copyright on the Pillar of Shame, thus putting it into the public domain:

For more than a decade, cable TV executives brushed aside the threat of cable TV "cord cutting" as either a nonexistent threat or a temporary phenomenon. Of course neither wound up being true, and consumer defections from the bloated, pricey traditional cable TV bundle continue to set records during the COVID crisis. Traditional cable TV providers saw a 6.2% drop in subscribers in the third quarter of 2021, an all time record. It's particularly bad for traditional satellite TV providers, who saw a 12% dip in overall users during the same quarter.But it's not just traditional cable that's feeling the pinch. Growth in new streaming alternatives is also slowing down:

This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to our post about Eric Clapton pretending to regret his lawsuit against a random woman in Germany who listed a bootleg CD on eBay. As it happens, the first place winner is a reply to the second place winner, so we're going to present them in reverse order. So, in second place, it's TFG with a response to someone who claimed this wasn't about copyright, but about some cryptic other thing:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2017, we were still two years away from any new works actually entering the public domain in the US (be sure to check out our public domain game jam now that this situation has changed!) so we took our usual look at the works that should have. Meanwhile, the Trump presidency was looming and we discussed how he demonstrated that much of the political system is based on traditions and custom, not rules. Malcolm Gladwell published a ridiculous attack on Edward Snowden for not being a "real" whistleblower, even as oversight of the Defense Department found more evidence of retaliation against those who use the "proper channels". And while we looked at the worrying comments from a potential incoming FCC boss, we also watched as AT&T was quick to start backing off of the promises it made to get its merger with Time Warner approved.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2012, some bad reporting led many to falsely believe that EA, Sony, and Nintendo had withdrawn support for SOPA (they had not, and EA was quick to insist it had no position either way). And indeed this was a big week for SOPA in the video game industry: some companies were speaking out against the ESA's presumed support, which soon became official, explicit support, which in turn led Capcom to get on board then quickly try to tapdance out of its position following the backlash. At the same time, the PC Gaming Alliance insisted it was "cautiously optimistic" about the bill. Meanwhile, we took a look at how SOPA would be a disaster for scientific publishing (and for everyone) while MPAA boss Chris Dodd was insisting that copyright has never created any free speech issues and Rep. Lamar Smith was sticking to a strategy of lying about the bill and dismissing opposition.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2007, ten years before AT&T's failure to live up to its Time Warner merger promises, it was making an earlier set of promises about its merger with BellSouth — bbut the FCC was effectively admitting that they were meaningless and non-binding, and the company was touting its bundle-heavy plans for post-merger "innovation". Many companies were still trying to hop on the social media bandwagon and emulate MySpace, with Disney's attempt looking far too limited and, uh, Toyota's attempt looking just plain silly. We looked at an example of copyright being used to stifle free speech (that thing that, five years later during the SOPA fight, Chris Dodd would insist had never happened). And we watched the first day of Congress for the year, which turned out to be a mixed bag when it came to internet issues.

We've talked a great deal about Major League Baseball here at Techdirt. Notably, for a long time those discussions have positive in nature, whether it was MLB's interesting pivots once COVID-19 went global or the expansion of its excellent streaming services. Now, while the league has also had issues playing IP enforcer in the past, or the more recent self-own the league conducted in response to its players lockout, the fact is that commissioner Rob Manfred has generally been a fresh voice of modernity and technological progress for the league.That makes it all the more perplexing that Manfred is currently being introduced to the concept of the Streisand Effect. At issue is the ousting of famed MLB reporter Ken Rosenthal. Rosenthal is, perhaps, one of the most respected baseball reporters in the industry, and was apparently fired from the MLB Network as a result of a scathing piece he did on Manfred's handling of baseball's 2020 season as it relates to working something out with the Players' Union for handling COVID protocols. Rosenthal was quietly suspended from MLBN airtime for three months over that article. Now, he's out entirely.

Windsor, Virigina was the recipient of unflattering nationwide news coverage due to two police officers deciding a black driver -- and Army medic -- needed to be brutalized for seeking a well-lit area to pull over. The whole thing was caught on the officers' body cameras, including their threats to make Lieutenant Caron Nazario "ride the lightning" (a reference to the officer's Taser) as well as the officer's affirmation that Nazario was right to be scared to exit his vehicle.A low-speed, non-lengthy, non-chase of one hundred seconds led to several minutes of violence, threats of further violence, and violated rights. The officers shouted conflicting orders -- to both keep hands where they could be seen as well as to exit the vehicle, something impossible for Nazario to comply with considering he still had his seatbelt on. The officers pointed their guns at him the entire time, pausing only to pepper spray him in the eyes. Nazario sued. That lawsuit is still ongoing. One of the officers -- Daniel Crocker -- is also facing criminal charges.But there's a postscript to this case that involves another lawsuit involving the Windsor Police Department. The state's Attorney General, Mark Herring, is suing the Town of Windsor over biased policing engaged in by PD officers.

Senator Thom Tillis is chock full of bad ideas about copyrights and patents -- mostly focused on making things worse for the public by expanding the monopoly powers granted to patent and copyright holders. So I guess it comes as little surprise that he held a secret meeting that appears to have only been attended by copyright maximalists to talk about trying to merge the Copyright Office into the US Patent & Trademark Office.

Changes in law, court decisions, and transparency efforts have resulted in the public release of names of officers prosecutors consider too unreliable to ask to testify in court. Officers with histories of misconduct or perjury are placed on "do not call" lists by prosecutors who are supposed to hand this information over to criminal defendants.The lists -- known by names referencing precedential decisions (Giglio, Brady) -- have historically been closely guarded by prosecutors. But that's no longer considered acceptable behavior in many parts of the country. Precedent creates an obligation that prosecutors are having a tougher time ignoring as police reform efforts continue to gain traction across the nation.But are these records public records? Many prosecutors and police unions have argued they aren't. While they're ok with begrudgingly handing these over to criminal defendants, they appear unwilling to let the rest of the uncharged public know which officers are considered too problematic to be counted on in court.Fortunately, the public is scoring a few wins in court over this issue, represented (so to speak) by journalists and transparency activists who seek these records with the intent of making them publicly available. The Maryland Court of Special Appeals has just handed one such win to the Baltimore Action Legal Team (BALT) which requested copies of the Office for the State's Attorney (SAO) "liar list" of Baltimore cops found to be too untrustworthy to be called on in court. (h/t FourthAmendment.com)This loss for Baltimore PD opacity started as a temporary win for the department's bad cops. From the decision [PDF]:

Back in November we wrote about a very bizarre attempt to abuse copyright law to uncover who was behind a Twitter account, @CallMeMoneyBags. That account tweeted out various things mocking and shaming various extremely wealthy people, including billionaire Brian Sheth, a private equity bro. Some of the tweets in the fall of 2020 lightly mocked Sheth, including suggesting potential infidelity. The images themselves appeared to be social media-type photos of young women (or possibly just one young woman).Sometime later, an organization called "Bayside Advisory LLC" showed up, claiming to hold the copyright on those images, and demanding Twitter take down the images -- which the company did. However, Bayside also tried to use the more controversial DMCA 512(h) subpoena process to try to uncover who was behind the MoneyBags account. That raised red flags with the legal team at Twitter, which is always careful not to give up someone's identity unless absolutely required to by law. Twitter moved to quash the subpoena, suggesting that -- given all of the context -- it seemed most likely that the person behind this effort was Sheth, who was trying to uncover the identify of an anonymous critic on social media, and not for any legitimate copyright reason.Bayside, for its part, insists that it has no connection to Sheth at all, though it does not identify on whose behalf it actually acts. The company only registered the copyright on those photos well after MoneyBags posted them, meaning there's no real value in suing (if the registration happens after the supposed infringement, then you're limited to "actual damages" which, here, would be nothing). The only real reason for issuing the subpoena is to find out who MoneyBags really is. Bayside also claims that it "advises and partners with creators, artists, entrepreneurs to protect, promote, and champion creative expression. Bayside owns a catalog of photographs (the photographs are only a small part of the catalog) to exploit for those purposes."That would have been more convincing if there was a long record of Bayside LLC registering similar copyrights, but, as we noted in our original article, there is not. It registered the photos in question... and those were the only registrations by Bayside until well after it sought the subpoena, at which point is suddenly registered some other unpublished photos.We were dismayed at the time that the court did not grant Twitter's motion to quash. Instead, it said that to do a full "fair use" analysis, it needed to hear from MoneyBags directly, and ordered Twitter to notify the user that s/he should file a declaration with the court about the use of the photos. Twitter did, apparently, send the info to MoneyBags, but MoneyBags (very unfortunately) chose not to file with the court (it's unclear if anyone is even checking the MoneyBags account any more as it hasn't posted in a while).Therefore, the court has said that since it can't conduct the proper fair use analysis, Twitter has to reveal who is behind the account.

The 2022 Premium CompTIA CyberSecurity and Security+ Exam Prep Bundle has 6 courses to help you prepare for the CompTIA certification exams. You'll learn about pen testing, risk management, how to scan for vulnerabilities, how to secure a corporate environment, and more. The bundle is on sale for $20.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Every year, a few days after New Years (once the data is truly complete), I try to do a post exploring some of the traffic patterns and comment details on Techdirt for the year. This year's will be a bit different on the traffic front, because at the end of last January, we took Google Analytics off the site, and that had been the tool we'd used to see where people were coming from and whatnot. Instead, this year for the details on where people are coming from and what technology they're using, we'll be using a combination of a self-hosted Matomo instance and Plausible Analytics (not self-hosted; though we're hoping to eventually switch to the self-hosted version). We ran all three solutions for one month before turning off Google Analytics, and the data roughly, though not exactly, matched (because all traffic numbers are fake and unreliable), but this year's info should be slightly different. As in the past, we're not reporting silly things like how much traffic we get, because (again), all those numbers are fake, due to dodgy tools and even dodgier bots and such. But we can get useful comparative data about where people are coming from and such.Even though it relied on different analytics, if you'd like to see the older versions, here they are: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010.The first thing we usually cover is where visitors are coming from -- and already we discover that with different tools, we get very different data. According to Plausible, our top five countries for visitors are the US at 70%, Canada at 5%, UK at 5%, Australia at 2% and India at 2%. Matomo has somewhat different results: US at 78%, UK at 6%, Canada at 3%, Australia at 2% and Germany at 1%. On Matomo, India actually comes in at number 15, rather than 5th on Plausible. Though Germany is 6th on Plausible. On Plausible the next four after Germany are France, Netherlands, Brazil and Sweden. On Matomo, the next five after Germany are France, Russia, Netherlands, Spain, and Sweden. Brazil, which came in 9th on Plausible shows up as 11th on Matomo. Russia, which shows up as 7th on Matomo is all the way down as 24th on Plausible!I repeat: a lot of traffic numbers are garbage and no one knows anything! Last year we were surprised that Google Analytics said China was in our top 10, even though we had heard Techdirt was mostly blocked there. Matomo says that China gave us the 13th most visitors of any country, though Plausible says it's actually 42nd (though, it counts Hong Kong separately, and has that come 37th -- so perhaps if you combine the two...).Moving on to what browsers people use, Chrome is still the leading tool for reading Techdirt. Matomo and Plausible seem to measure browser info in slightly different ways, but it does appear that somewhere around 45% of our traffic is from Chrome (Matomo breaks it down into different versions of Chrome) and somewhere between 25 and 32% from Safari. Firefox is somewhere between 8 and 12%. Interesting to note that most of the Safari traffic is from mobile (so, iOS) whereas most of the Chrome traffic is from a computer. There is still decent amount of mobile Chrome and desktop Safari, but it's a lot more of the alternative. Microsoft Edge is around 4% according to both platforms. DuckDuckGo's privacy browser is a new entrant this year, with both systems saying about 2% of our traffic is coming from there (which is cool to see). Both Opera and Samsung's browser get about 1% each. Matomo claims that there were 126 different browsers used to visit Techdirt last year, which is quite something.In terms of operating systems, Windows at 32% beat out iOS at 26%, Android at 24% and Mac at 14%. Linux variations were about 3% and Chrome OS was a bit under 1%. The two analytics systems seem to agree that about 48% of our traffic was from desktops/laptops, with 52% coming from phones/tablets. Incredibly, a tiny fraction of people apparently visited Techdirt from gaming consoles, TVs, or car browsers (?!?).Every year I'm interested in, generally speaking, where visitors are coming from. While other sites spent lots of time "gaming" social media sites for traffic, we've always avoided that. I'm not against getting such traffic, but I don't want to be reliant on it. So I'm always most interested in how much of our traffic is coming directly from people choosing to be here, and that continues to remain high, with 52% of our traffic coming from "direct" visits, 26.5% from search, only 14.2% from social media, and another 6.5% from other websites:As for social media traffic, Twitter is the biggest single provider, with 55.6% of social media traffic coming from the bird site. Facebook provides 18.3% of the social media traffic, barely edging out Reddit by a barely noticeable number of visits. Hacker News comes in 4th at 6.3%. Everything beneath that is negligible, but if you must know, it's LinkedIn, YouTube, and Telegram after the top four.Google (84%) provides the majority of our search traffic (again, which is 26% of our overall traffic), followed by DuckDuckGo (10%), Bing (3%) and Yahoo (1%). If you mash social and search together, Google provides us the most traffic, followed by Twitter, Reddit, DuckDuckGo, then Facebook, HackerNews and Bing.And... now we get to the lists.Top Ten Stories, by unique pageviews, on Techdirt for 2021:

Excited delirium isn't a medical condition. It's just post-death rationalization that shifts the culpability for deaths at the hands of law enforcement to the corpses the cops created. This supposed medical diagnosis didn't reach critical mass until the introduction of one of the most infamous "less-lethal" weapons ever created: the Taser.Taser is a cattle prod for humans. But it has never been extensively tested on humans for obvious reasons: it has the capacity to be lethal. Taser has since rebranded as Axon, but its legacy lives on. And some of that legacy is the mainstream law enforcement adoption of "excited delirium" as the x factor in officer-involved killings that involve multiple or prolonged deployments of Taser's modified stun gun.Taser may have distanced itself from its only-slightly-less-lethal weapon, but there's no escaping the death toll. And there's no escaping Taser's culpability in these deaths -- a company that has lawyered itself up to the teeth and hired a shitload of medical experts to find any other reason than the most obvious for deaths in custody. Let's not forget what inspired Taser and (kind of) gave it its product name: Tom Swift and His Electric Rifle, a young adult novel that featured a main character who carried a weapon that was anything but "less lethal."

We have long chronicled the aggressive IP enforcement tactics and behavior of video game giant Nintendo. There have been so many stories specifically about Nintendo's animosity towards its fans when those fans express their fandom by creating fan-games that any regular reader here will be familiar with at least some of them. While gaming company responses towards fan-games are certainly more of a spectrum than something black and white, Nintendo probably takes the crown for the least permissive gaming company for this sort of thing. So much so, in fact, that we highlighted its former chief rival, Sega, when it took the opposite tact with folks making Sonic the Hedgehog fan-games.Well, someone out there took the time to create a parody news article about Sega doing a heel-turn on this in a way that seems mostly dedicated to skewering Nintendo for its aggressive, anti-fan behavior. The headline for the comedy post is, appropriately, "Sega Announces They Will Be Using Fan-Game Creators To Develop New Sonic Lawsuit."Let's dive in.

The high number of scammy providers and overall rise in encryption appears to have turned the public sentiment against virtual private network (VPN) VPNs, and whether most consumers actually even need one. As privacy scandals and hacks grew over the last decade, VPNs quickly emerged as a sort of mystical panacea, that could protect you from all harm on the internet. Of course, this resulted in a flood of VPN competitors who were outright scams, made misleading statements about what data is collected, or failed to protect consumer data.The end result is a new trend in the press where about once a month we get a new story informing you that you probably don't actually need a VPN. NBC News was the latest last week, pointing out that VPNs aren't the panacea many people seem to assume:

People at the Copyright Office seem to get mad at me every time I suggest that the Copyright Office is captured by Hollywood, and pointing out how top officials there all seem to bounce back and forth between the Copyright Office and Hollywood.That's not to say there aren't some good people there, because there are. But the organization is dominated by former (and, if the past is any indication, soon to be again), lobbyists and lawyers of the biggest copyright abusers on the planet. So it's difficult to take the Office seriously as a steward for the public good (as they are supposed to be), when it's currently headed by the former top lawyer at IFPI, who, before that, was the top IP lawyer for Time Warner. And, when she then decides to hire Disney's top "IP lawyer" to become General Counsel of the Copyright Office (as has just been announced), it becomes really difficult not to be cynical.This is what regulatory capture looks like.But even worse, actions like this are why the public doesn't believe in copyright. Over and over again all we see is abuse of copyright, and then the government puts the same people who have abused copyright in charge of copyright at the Copyright Office, it makes the public cynical and (reasonably) distrustful of the intentions of the Copyright Office. That's disappointing, as there are plenty of people who have expertise in copyright law who would be great for the Copyright Office. But, for some reason, they never get hired into the top jobs unless they've spent time working for one of the giant Hollywood or recording industry organizations.

In response to the killing of a Baltimore police officer, the head of the Baltimore police union, Mike Mancuso, has decided to accuse everyone who doesn't love cops as being responsible for her killing. The statement from the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) was delivered via Twitter, portraying itself as an "Open Letter to the People of Baltimore."It's not really an open letter. It's a rant that makes false claims, punctuated with one particularly meaningless statistic to drive its point home: the Baltimore PD no longer feels it has the support of the city government, nor the people it serves. FOP President Mancuso is probably correct on both counts. But nowhere does he even hint that part of the problem might be the Baltimore Police Department.Here's where the letter goes off the rails. It starts in the second paragraph which means you won't have to read much of the "open letter" [PDF] before your eyes start rolling. Let's turn it over to the head of the FOP:

The Web Development Crash Course Bundle has 6 courses to help you become a master programmer. You'll learn about C++, Bootstrap, Modern OpenGL, HTML, and more. The courses will teach you how to create websites, how to program for virtual reality, how to create your own games, and how to create your own apps. The bundle is on sale for $25.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

We've been talking a bit lately about how the media creates moral panics, especially ones that blame social media for problems that are much more likely mostly created by the media themselves.And here's another example of the virtuous cycle, in which the New York Times is able to first create a moral panic, and then gets to keep reporting on Congress "investigating" the moral panic the NY Times itself created. It started with an article in the NY Times discussing a website, which I will not name, that has created forums for those interested in suicide. The article is presented as saying (1) that the website encourages suicide... and (2) then appears to blame Section 230 for it. The reality, on both of those points, is a hell of a lot more complicated.First off, discussions about "encouraging" suicide are always somewhat fraught. I've lost two friends to suicide, and it's very, very natural to look for people to blame. But it's often counterproductive, and no one can ever know for sure what actually caused someone to decide to end their life. A decade ago we talked about this a bit, in regards to two separate lawsuits looking to hold liable people who, it was argued, "drove" others to suicide. Except, as we noted at the time, when you blame people for "driving" or "encouraging" suicide, you are actually giving way more power to the suicide itself, because it gives more power to those thinking of killing themselves, knowing that it will punish people who had been mean to them. In other words, trying to hold people liable for "encouraging" suicide can, unfortunately, actually encourage more suicide in and of itself.Suicide itself is a very fraught topic. In early 2021, Katie Engelhart's book The Inevitable: Dispatches on the Right to Die came out, and it's worth reading. It made me, personally, feel conflicted about the idea of assisted suicide and the right to die -- and reminded me that it's impossible to decide that there's a "right" answer here. Every case is unique and they all involve a whole bunch of difficult moral decisions that different people weigh in different ways. But blaming others for the very personal decisions that an individual makes seems incredibly dangerous. Yet, the entire structure of the NY Times piece seems to want to put the blame on a website. And, on Section 230.But, as the article itself noted, the existence of the site in question is due to other sites removing it. It apparently was a response to Reddit shutting down a forum that discussed suicide:

We've noted a few times now how the U.S. is preparing to spend $42 billion to shore up broadband access, despite not actually knowing where broadband is or isn't available. It's part of a multi-decade effort to fix mediocre broadband without using real world data to actually do it, and without acknowledging that the primary reason U.S. is mired in mediocrity is thanks to regional monopolization and the vast state and federal corruption that protects it.While the press and punditry haven't yet found the courage to directly acknowledge that latter point (you might upset a campaign contributor, story source, or advertiser), the infrastructure bill has drawn new attention to the fact that it's 2022 and we still can't accurately measure U.S. broadband availability and speeds.The Washington Post recently did a good story on this problem, and this week Protocol joined the rush with a good piece of its own.Both stories note how, for years, the FCC determined a census block "served" with broadband if an incumbent ISP simply claimed it could service one home in that census block. Both correctly note that we're finally seeing a bipartisan push to do something as states rush to the trough of both COVID relief and infrastructure broadband funds. Both correctly note that mapping methodology fixes are coming, but probably too late for the massive funding coming down the lane. And both stories ably document the frustration of local community leaders and reformers who are trying to fix a problem with a blindfold on:

What happens when you add a bored cop to a cold case? Bad things. Very bad things. That's the moral of the story conveyed by this Seventh Circuit Appeals Court decision [PDF].Actually, calling it a decision is overstating the conclusions. Apparently, the plaintiff, the defendants, and the lower court all made matters far more confusing than they needed to be, leaving the Appeals Court with a muddied record, unclear assertions from all parties, and open questions as to whether qualified immunity on Fourth Amendment claims had actually been denied.But the path to the procedural shitshow is a full-blown horror show. An unfortunate death, a full autopsy, no sign of foul play, and yet some officer put out to pasture by his department decided he was the second coming of Columbo and mounted a concerted attempt to ruin a person's life.Curt Lovelace's wife, Cory, died in her bed one morning while Curt was getting their children ready for school. Almost any death in a person's home will trigger an investigation. This tragedy was no exception.

Online game platform Roblox has gone from a niche offering to a cultural phenomenon over its 15 years of existence. Rivalling Minecraft in its ability to attract young users, Roblox is played by over half of American children and has a user base of 164 million active users.Roblox also gives players access to a robust set of creation tools, allowing users to create and craft their own experiences, as well as enjoy those created by others.A surge in users during the COVID-19 pandemic created problems Roblox’s automated moderation systems — as well as its human moderators — are still attempting to solve. Roblox employs 1,600 human moderators who not only handle content flowing through in-game chat features but content created and shared with other users utilizing Roblox’s creation tools.Users embraced the creation tools, some in healthier ways than others. If it happened in the real world, someone will try to approximate it online. Users have used a kid-focused game to create virtual red light districts where players can gather to engage in simulated sex with other players — an activity that tends to avoid moderation by utilizing out-of-game chat platforms like Discord to provide direct links to this content.Perhaps more disturbingly, players are recreating mass shootings — many of them containing a racial element — inside the game, and inviting players to step into the shoes of mass murderers. Anti-Defamation League researcher Daniel Kelley was easily able to find recreations of the Christchurch Mosque shooting that occurred in New Zealand in 2019.While Roblox proactively polices the platform for “terrorist content,” the continual resurfacing of content like this remains a problem without an immediate solution. As Russell Brandom of The Verge points out, 40 million daily users generate more content than can be manually-reviewed by human moderators. And the use of a keyword blocklist would result in users being unable to discuss (or recreate) the New Zealand town.Company considerations:

It's been four years now since the US finally started allowing old works to enter the public domain after decades in which cultural landlords continually moved to actively remove works from the public domain. Every year since the US got back into the public domain business, we've happily run a game jam, encouraging people to make use of these newly public domain works, and this year is no different (check out the Gaming Like It's 1926 game jam page if you're interested!).I'm not entirely sure why, but this year, people seem even more interested than in the past few years. We've received way more initial signups than in the past, and more community activity as well. I'm also seeing (outside of the game jam), more public awareness of these newly public domain works than in the past, when it sometimes felt like a more muted public level of interest. Hell, even Ryan Reynolds was quick to jump on the newly public domain to help promote the MVNO Mint Mobile, in which he owns the largest stake.Perhaps some of the excitement over this year's public domain entries is the fact that the public are now getting used to the fact that every January 1st, new works enter the public domain. Or, perhaps it just has to do with the prominence of some of this year's works. When the 1923 class of the public domain came around, many people noted that there weren't very many "big" cultural touchstones in that batch -- and to some extent the same has been true over the last few years' batches as well. The Great Gatsby had name recognition, but still felt kind of old and a bit stuffy.This year's inclusion of the first Winnie-the-Pooh book seems to have changed some of that. But, as Alan Cole rightly points out, it's a complete travesty that Pooh wasn't in the public domain decades ago.As we've explained at length before, copyright term extension makes no sense, legally, ethically, or morally. The entire point of copyright law (in the US) is that it is an economic incentive to creators: if you create something creative and new, we give you an exclusive right to copy it for this length of time. If the work was then created, the incentive was enough. The deal was made. Clearly, the copyright term at the date of creation served its purpose -- to make sure there was enough incentive to create that work. Extending the term of works already created does absolutely nothing to re-incentivize those old works. They were already made. All it does is take things away from the public. The public promised you an exclusive right for a certain number of years, and at the end the public was supposed to get access to those works.In the case of Pooh, when A.A. Milne created it, copyright term in the US was 28 years, though it could be renewed for another 28 years. Thus, the maximum copyright that Milne could have possibly expected in the US was 56 years. In other words, he knew that when he published the work in the US, it would enter the public domain here by 1982 at the latest. The fact that Milne was British has no bearing on this, since he still chose to publish in the US under these rules, and that was clearly enough incentive at the time. (For what it's worth, as I understand it, when he published the works in the UK, the term at the time was "life of the author plus 50" and seeing as he died in 1956, it would be expected that his works would enter the public domain in 2006).Either way, it makes no sense at all that Pooh is only in the public domain now (and just the first book of Pooh). Cole's piece goes much more in depth into the inherent trade-offs with copyright.

If you're in the IT industry, as I am, and you come across someone talking about using Norton or Symantec antivirus software, as I occasionally do, it typically sends you diving for your calendar to check what year we're in. The a/v provider, once dominant in the space, has since built a reputation for itself as bloated software that is mostly effective at grinding your computer to a halt. Whether or not that reputation is deserved, the company has also had issues in the past with users claiming an inability to fully remove Norton software when attempting an uninstall. So, a checkered recent past is the point.Which makes Norton the perfect antivirus company to rollout an update to its Norton 360 platform to allow customers to mine Ethereum with its software!