Techdirt

It never ceases to amaze me how often people that really should know better seem to think that they can simply remove their own histories from the internet effectively. It seems the be a lesson never learned, be it from major corporations or even the Pope, that the internet never forgets. Thanks to tools like The Wayback Machine and others, attempts to sweep history under the rug are mostly fruitless endeavors. And, yet, people still try.Such as Michael Caputo, the new spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services. That department is just a tad important at the moment, given the COVID-19 pandemic we're all enduring. Well, Caputo got the job and decided he better get to Twitter to delete all that racist and conspiratorial shit he said so that we all don't find out about it.

Over the last month or so, we've written plenty on the challenges of social media companies managing content moderation in the midst of a pandemic, highlighting the challenges when misinformation is coming from official sources, when it's impossible to distinguish legit info from misinformation, when the intersection of politics and misinformation gets tricky, and, of course, when platforms have to rely more on AI while all their workers are working from home (raising significant privacy concerns if they're still moderating content).In the long run, what happened over the last couple months is going to represent a truly fascinating place to look for case studies about content moderation on the internet -- but only if the data is available. To that end, a bunch of public interest groups, led by CDT, have put out an open letter asking social media platforms to preserve as much as possible about the content moderation decisions they're making and to be as transparent as possible for future research:

Get your OK, Landlord gear

On April 11, Princeton mathematician and the inventor of “Game of Life” John Horton Conway passed away from the coronavirus. Known as a “magical genius” whose curiosity extended beyond just mathematics, the passing was a devastating blow to many who loved the man.Yet as news of his passing broke, an interesting scenario developed. Instead of a formal statement from the institution or his family, the news first appeared on Twitter. With no verifiable proof of the claim, many were left struggling to determine whether to believe the story.This scenario––a questionable story that can be proven true or false in time––presents a challenge for combating the spread of false information online. As we have seen many times before on social media, stories are often shared prior to the information being verified. Unfortunately, this will increasingly occur––especially in an election year and during a pandemic. Therefore, examining how social media responded during this particular event can help better determine the rules and patterns that drive the spread of information online.Around 2:00 pm EST on Saturday, April 11, news started to spread on social media that John Horton Conway had died. The main source was a tweet that came from a fellow mathematician, who expressed his condolences and shared a story of Conway writing a blog post for April Fool’s Day.As the news began to spread, most individuals who saw the tweets accepted the information as true and began expressing condolences themselves.However some started to question the news; mainly because the original tweet had no source verifying the claim. As time went on, people began to speculate that this may indeed be a hoax, and many began deleting and retracting earlier tweets; a void existed where a source should be.Users filled that void with Wikipedia, a platform where any individual can make changes to the information on any given page. However, this led to a series of citation conflicts, where users would post and then others would delete the post, claiming a lack of source.The confusion eventually died down as more individuals who knew John Horton Conway explained what had happened, and how they knew. Indeed, the account that first broke the news followed up later with an explanation of what happened. But in that brief window where questions arose, we received a glimpse into how social media reacts to questionable news. And as if discovering the rules to a “Game of Misinformation,” this teaches us a few important lessons about user behavior and how misinformation spreads over time.First, most users quickly trusted the initial reports as the information filtered in. This is to be expected: research has shown that individuals tend to trust those in their social networks. And indeed, the mathematician whose tweet was the primary source, while not the closest person to the deceased, was in the same community. In other words, what he said had weight. Further, by linking an article in Scientific American, users may have made a connection between the news and the article, even when the tweet did specify that was not the case.Because of this level of trust within networks, individuals must carefully consider the content and the context by which they share information. Rushing to post breaking news can cause significant harms when that information is incorrect. At the same time, presentation can also have a drastic impact on how the reader digests the information. In this case, linking to the Scientific American story provided interesting context about the man behind the name, but also could give the reader the impression that the article supported the claim that he had died. That is not to say that any tweets in this situation were hasty or ill-conceived, but individuals must remain mindful of how the information shared online is presented and may be perceived by the audience.Second, people do read comments and replies. The original tweet or social media post may receive the most attention, but many users will scroll through the comments, especially those who post the original material. This leads to two key conclusions. First, users should critically examine information and wait for additional verification before accepting assertions as truth. Second, when information seems incorrect, or at least unverified, users can and should engage with the content to point out the discrepancy. This can mean the difference between a false story spreading between 1,000 people or 1,000,000 people before the information is verified/disproven. Again, while this will not stop the spread of false information outright, it can lead to retractions and a general awareness from other users, which will “flatten the misinformation curve”, so to speak.Finally, when a void of sources exists, individuals may try to use other mediums or hastily reported news to bolster their point of view. In this case, so-called “edit wars” developed on John Conway’s Wikipedia page, with some writing that he had died while others removed the information. While it is impossible to say whether the same individuals who edited the Wikipedia page also used it as evidence to support the original tweet, it does highlight how easy it could be to use a similar method in the future. Users often have to rely on the word of a small number of individuals in the hours following the release of a questionable story. When this is the case, some may try to leverage the implicit trust we have in other institutions to bolster their claims and arguments. In this case, it was Wikipedia, but it could be others. Users must carefully consider the possible biases or exploits that exist with specific sources.Like Conway’s Game of Life, there are patterns to how information spreads online. Understanding these patterns and the rules by which false information changes and grows will be critical as we prepare for the next challenge. Sadly, the story that spread earlier this month turned out to be true, but the lessons we can learn from it can be applied to similar stories moving forward.Jeffrey Westling is a technology and innovation policy fellow at the R Street Institute, a free-market think tank based in Washington, D.C.

Andy Baio always digs up the absolute best stories. His latest involves layers upon layers of fascinating issues and legal questions. The key part, though, is that Jay-Z and his company Roc Nation, were able to convince YouTube to remove two "audio deepfakes" by claiming both copyright infringement and "unlawfully using AI to impersonate our client's voice." Both of these are highly questionable claims. But let's take a few steps back first.We've discussed how there seems to be a bit of a moral panic around deepfakes, with the idea being that more and more advanced technology can be used to create faked video and audio that looks or sounds real -- and that might be used to dupe people. So far, there's little evidence of the technology ever actually being used to really deceive people, and there's plenty of reason to believe that society can adjust and adapt to any eventual attempts at using deepfakes to deceive.Still, in part because of the media and politicians freaking out about the whole idea, a number of social media platforms have put in place fairly aggressive content moderation policies regarding deepfakes, so as to (hopefully) avoid the inevitable big media "expose" about how they're enabling nefarious activities by not pulling such faked videos down. But, as we've noted in some of those previous articles, the vast majority of deepfake content these days is purely used for entertainment/amusement purposes -- not for nefarious reasons.And that's absolutely the case with the anonymous user Vocal Synthesis, who has been playing around with a variety of fun audio deepfakes -- just using AI to synthesize the voice of various famous people saying things they wouldn't normally say (or singing things they wouldn't normally sing). The creator releases them as videos, but it's just a static image, and even when they're "singing" songs, it's without any of the music -- just the voice. So, here's Bob Dylan singing Britney Spears' "... Baby One More Time":And here's Bill Clinton's rendition of Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Baby Got Back":Some other people have taken some of those audio deepfakes and put them to music, which is also fun. Here are six former President's singing N.W.A.'s "Fuck the Police":A few of the audio deepfakes use Jay-Z's distinctive voice -- and apparently Jay-Z or his lawyers got upset about this and issued takedown notices to YouTube on two of them. As I type this, those two videos (one of Jay-Z reciting the famed "To Be, Or Not To Be" soliloquy from Hamlet and another of him doing Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire") are back up with YouTube saying that the original takedown notices were "incomplete" and therefor the video had been reinstated. But they were taken down originally, and it's possible that more "complete" takedowns will be sent, so for the time being (as Andy Baio did) I'll also point to the same content hosted by LBRY, a decentralized file storage system:And here's where things get odd. As Andy notes in his post (which is so detailed and worth reading), the takedown from Roc Nation made two separate claims: first that the videos infringe on Jay-Z's copyright, and the second that each video "unlawfully uses an AI to impersonate our client’s voice." But what law is being broken here? And if it was illegal to impersonate someone, a bunch of impressionists would be in jail. Andy goes through a detailed fair use analysis on the copyright question:

The Increase Your Google App Productivity with Google Script Bundle has 7 courses to help you learn about Google Apps Script. Apps Script lets you increase the power of your favorite Google apps — like Calendar, Docs, Drive, Gmail, Sheets, and Slides. These 7 courses cover every step to get started with Google Scripts including an overview of the editor and what it does and how to use it. You'll learn more advanced uses with hands-on projects and more. It's on sale for $35.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.

I get that people are getting a bit of cabin fever and perhaps that's impacting people's outlook on the world, but a recent piece by David Rotman in the MIT Tech Review is truly bizarre. The title gets you straight to the premise: Covid-19 has blown apart the myth of Silicon Valley innovation. Of course, even the paragraph that explains the thesis seems almost like a modern updating of the famous "what have the Romans ever done for us?" scene from Monty Python's Life of Brian:

42 million Americans lack access to any kind of broadband whatsoever -- more than double official FCC estimates. Millions more can't afford broadband because the monopolized US telecom sector suffers from a dire lack of competition in most markets. US telcos, bored with the slow rate of return, have effectively stopped upgrading their DSL networks across broad swaths of America, leaving cable giants like Comcast and Charter spectrum with a bigger monopoly than ever across wide swaths of America. And no, wireless 5G won't magically fix the problem due to patchy availability and high prices.This is, to hear the FCC tell it, all going swimmingly.By law (Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) the FCC is required once a year to issue a report indicating whether quality broadband is being deployed on a "reasonable and timely basis." If not, the agency is supposed to, you know, actually do something about it. But every year like clockwork, the FCC issues the report ignoring all of the biggest problems in the telecom sector, to the obvious benefit of an industry eager to keep things precisely as they are: largely uncompetitive. Never will you see policy that improves competition, because the lack of competition isn't even acknowledged.This year was no exception. The Trump FCC's latest report once again insists that broadband "is being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion," so no shift from the status quo is necessary. And in a very Trumpian statement, FCC boss Ajit Pai congratulates himself for incredible leadership, while repeating the falsehood that his decision to take an axe to already fairly filmsy FCC oversight of the broken sector has somehow resulted in a massive wave of new investment:

Over the years, Techdirt has written many stories about the various forms that censorship has taken in China. The coronavirus pandemic has added an extra dimension to the situation. China is evidently trying to erase certain aspects of the disease's history. In particular, it seeks to deny its likely role in acting as the breeding ground for COVID-19, and to downplay how it infected the rest of the world after the initial outbreak in Wuhan. As the New York Times put it: "China is trying to rewrite its role, leveraging its increasingly sophisticated global propaganda machine to cast itself as the munificent, responsible leader that triumphed where others have stumbled." Quartz reports on a new front in this campaign to re-cast China's actions. Volunteers in China working on a project called Terminus2049, which aims to preserve key digital records of the coronavirus outbreak, are now targets of a crackdown:

Four years ago, the Baltimore Police Department unilaterally decided to put several eyes in the sky. The 192-million megapixel camera system capable of covering 32-square miles was sent skyward with zero public comment or input from the city. And why not? The city was barely involved. The BPD received the camera system courtesy of a private donor.The head of the company, John McNutt, was contacted by some Texas-based philanthropists who offered to pay for the system if McNutt's company, Persistent Surveillance Systems, would put it up in the air. What the system lacks in depth, it makes up for in breadth. Humans and vehicles are reduced to mere pixels, but the system's ability to rewind recordings makes it possible for the PD to track movement of vehicles and people near crime scenes.The aerial surveillance system is more re-purposed war tech. It was originally deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan under the name "Gorgon Stare." That's what Persistent Surveillance Systems is flying over Baltimore, this time with the city's official blessing. After a period of public comment, the surveillance system is no longer just a test project.The ACLU sued to block the launch of the program, citing the Supreme Court's Carpenter decision, which adds a warrant requirement to the collection of cell site location data. It's not an exact fit, but the Carpenter decision has been read by some courts to cover more than just location data.Unfortunately, the ACLU's attempt to secure an injunction has failed. The decision [PDF] doesn't find the Carpenter decision applicable to an all-seeing-eye that can only capture the movement of pixels, rather than identifiable human beings. That being said, the planes (three of them) will fly for a minimum 40 hours a week each, resulting in six months of 12-hour-a-day coverage of nearly the entire city. (h/t Munchkin at Law)There's something more than a little dystopian about the program. But, despite the promise contained in the company's name, this surveillance isn't all that persistent.

The broadcast and TV sector spent the last fifteen years trying to claim that TV cord cutting (cancelling traditional TV and going with streaming or antenna broadcasts) wasn't a real thing, or that it was only something done by losers. But it's the cord cutters who'll be getting the last laugh.A new study (pdf) by the Convergence Research Group indicates that cord cutting, once denied to exist at all by the cable TV sector, is about to get even hotter. According to the report, 36% of US homes didn't pay for "traditional" cable TV at the end of a particularly bloody year for the pay TV sector. The group estimates that total will grow to 42% of US households in 2020, and finally topple into a majority of consumers (54%) by 2022. That in turn is contributing to a notable drop in revenue from the major cable TV providers, down from $100 billion in 2019 to a predicted $94.8 billion this year.If you're worried about major giants like Comcast, AT&T and Verizon struggling, you shouldn't. While their video profits will erode, their monopoly over broadband means they'll simply be recouping that lost revenue by jacking up the price of your broadband connection (including usage caps and overage fees) in the massive number of uncompetitive US broadband markets:

Fucking predictive policing/how the fuck does it work. Mostly, it doesn't. For the most part, predictive policing relies on garbage data generated by garbage cops, turning years of biased policing into "actionable intel" by laundering it through a bunch of proprietary algorithms.More than half a decade ago, early-ish adopters were expressing skepticism about the tech's ability to suss out the next crime wave. For millions of dollars less, average cops could have pointed out hot crime spots on a map based on where they'd made arrests, while still coming nothing close to the reasonable suspicion needed to declare nearly everyone in a high crime area a criminal suspect.The Los Angeles Police Department's history with the tech seems to indicate it should have dumped it years ago. The department has been using some form of the tech since 2007, but all it seems to be able to do is waste limited law enforcement resources to violate the rights of Los Angeles residents. The only explanations for the LAPD's continued use of this failed experiment are the sunk cost fallacy and its occasional use as a scapegoat for the department's biased policing.Predictive policing is finally dead in Los Angeles. Activists didn't kill it. Neither did the LAPD's oversight. Logic did not finally prevail. For lack of a better phrase, it took an act of God {please see paragraph 97(b).2 for coverage limits} to kill a program that has produced little more than community distrust and civil rights lawsuits. Caroline Haskins has more details at BuzzFeed.

Last month, Kara Swisher wrote an opinion piece for the NY Times ripping Sean Hannity and Fox News to shreds for convincing her mother that COVID-19 wasn't going to be too bad back in February and leading into March. It's notable how she started her piece:

After writing this post, we realized that the phrase would make a great t-shirt! So now you can get yourself some OK, Landlord gear from the Techdirt store on Threadless »For a long time now we've explained why comparing copyrights to property is fraught with problems. So much of the reason that we engage in property rights is to enable a more efficient allocation of scarce goods. When you have something that is not-scarce -- or as the cool economist kids like to say "non-rivalrous and non-excludable" -- treating them in the same manner as if they were scarce creates all sorts of weird problems, many of which we've spent two decades detailing on this site. Indeed, for every argument made that copyright is property, you could make a compelling case that it's actually the opposite of property in that it frequently takes away the rights and ability of individuals to do what they want with products they rightfully own.Five years ago, I noted that one of the big problems around the concept of "intellectual property" was the failure of people to separate the content, from the exclusive rights. That is, it's fair to think of the copyright as a form of property -- as the "right of exclusion" that it creates is more property-like -- but that it must be seen as separate from the underlying content. The "copyright" is not the content. And so much of the discussion around copyrights conflates the right and the underlying content and that creates all sorts of problems.Meanwhile, law professor Brian Frye has spent the last month or so making a really important point regarding the never-ending "is copyright property" debate -- saying that if copyright is property, then copyright holders should be seen and treated as landlords. This whole approach can be summed up in the slightly snarky and trollish phrase: "OK, Landlord" used to respond to all sorts of nonsensical takes in support of more egregious copyright policies:

The Start-to-Finish Guide to Launching a Successful Podcast Bundle has 9 courses designed to teach you what you need to know to get your own podcast up and running. Regardless of your budget or skill level, this bundle will show you what it takes to start, record, edit, publish, grow, and monetize your podcast. You'll dive into the benefits of running a podcast, the gear you'll need to get started, and more essential concepts. Courses also cover social media marketing, music production, how to interview your heroes, and more. It's on sale for $45.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.

Whenever our nation's court system resumes to normalcy, there will hopefully be another case on the Supreme Court docket that could clarify if someone who engages in protected speech can be held responsible for violent actions of someone else at the same protest.Activist DeRay McKesson participated in a Black Lives Matter protest in Baton Rouge, Louisiana following the shooting of Alton Brown by police officers. During this protest, someone threw a chunk of concrete at a cop, injuring him. The officer -- known only as "John Doe" in his filings -- sued McKesson (along with the entire Black Lives Matter movement and, inexplicably, a set of Twitter hashtags).The district court found in favor of McKesson, saying he wasn't directly or indirectly responsible for the actions of other protesters, even if the protest began with protesters illegally blocking traffic. Officer Doe appealed. Inexplicably, the Fifth Circuit Appeals Court refused to address the First Amendment issue, finding instead that -- under state law -- McKesson could continue to be sued for participating in the same protest where this mystery cop was injured.McKesson asked the Fifth Circuit to take a second look at its awful decision. It did and liked what it had said the first time around. The only exception was Judge Don Willett, who belatedly recognized the First Amendment issue was paramount and that allowing protest organizers to be personally sued for the violent actions of others was extremely bad precedent to set.That's where the Supreme Court might be able to help. If it takes the case, it can reverse this precedent -- one that stands not-so-firmly on a 8-8 split between Fifth Circuit judges. Constitutional law professor Garrett Epps has a thorough rundown of the case's history at The Atlantic. Epps says the wild card in play is not the recently-apologetic Judge Willett, but rather another member of the court, Judge James Ho, who seems determined to make Constitutional rights subservient to the needs and wants of police officers.

With a large part of the planet on lockdown in a bid to slow the spread of COVID-19, streaming video consumption has seen explosive growth. Streaming platform Mux this week issued a study stating that during one three-week period measured by the company, streaming video usage overall jumped 239%.UK piracy tracking firm Muso TNT says they've also seen "unprecedented" traffic to movie streaming websites around the world in the last few months. The firm found that in many countries, the kind of piracy traffic traditionally reserved for weekends is now the norm during most weeks:

A million and a half people are all sending this monstrosity to me. From patient zero of overly aggressive content ownership, the Twitter account of Disney+, the new streaming service from Disney, announced that everyone should share their favorite Star Wars memories using the #MayThe4th hashtag. As you probably know, "May the 4th" has become the semi-official Star Wars day, thanks to fans of the movies spreading the "May the force be with you"/"May the 4th be with you" puns on social media a little over a decade ago, leading to it being declared (unofficially) as "Star Wars Day" in 2011. Disney finally agreed to embrace it in 2013.Anyway, after asking people to share their favorite Star Wars memory, Disney+ just had to Disney it all up by declaring that if you use that hashtag, you are agreeing to Disney's very broad terms of use, which include a bunch of fun nonsense like "binding arbitration" and a "class action waiver." All based on the use of a hashtag. After everyone started mocking them for this bullshit rights claim, five hours later they added a new "clause" by tweet, saying that "the above legal language only applies to replies" to Disney+. Of course, that still doesn't make it legit.In case you can't read it, here is the three tweet sequence typed out:

It's too bad it takes a lawsuit to free up supposedly "open" records. A few years ago, transparency group Reclaim the Records asked for some easy-to-compile birth and death data from the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services and received this ridiculous response.

So here's a bit of a fun milestone. This blog post will be my 50,000th blog post on Techdirt, which is kind of insane when you think about it. I noticed last year that I was approaching that number and have checked back periodically to see where I was. Last month I realized I was 100 posts away, and have been watching the counter move along until now, the 50,000th post on the site.For what it's worth, the Guinness World Records folks still claim that the world record for "most prolific professional blogger" was Darren Murph and his measly 17,212 posts for Engadget in 2010. By that time I already had over 30,000 posts, but apparently Guinness is not too concerned about accuracy. In 2014, I had reached out to Guinness just to suggest that their record there was wrong, but rather than investigating the matter themselves, they sent me a huge form to apply for my own record, which would involve a ton of work to "document" all my posts, and, honestly, who the hell has time for that, when there are more blog posts to write.Anyway, just for fun, I thought I'd link back to some other "milestone" posts, starting with my very first post, which was actually a copy of an email newsletter I sent out in August of 1997. For the first few years, it really was mostly just a newsletter, and I'd take the emails and post them to the website as well. The first "real" blog post to the site came on March 12, 1999, and was about E*Trade launching a corporate venture fund. Exciting stuff, I know. The 10,000th post came on January 2nd of 2003, discussing how American kids weren't texting as much as kids elsewhere (of course, back then we called it "wireless messaging" because "texting" hadn't been invented yet in the old times). The reasoning? More use of instant messaging on computers at home as compared to in other countries (and less use of public transportation). I'd imagine crappy phones had a role as well.The 25,000th post was in November of 2006 and was about banks acting surprised that insiders were a big data breach threat -- again, not the most exciting of Techdirt fare, but I don't make the rules. I just write the posts. Anyway, given that I got to 25,000 posts by 2006, it's pretty clear that my prolific nature has slowed quite a bit in my later years. Those first 25,000 or so came in about 7 years, and it took another 14 to get the next 25,000 posts. I'm going to have to pick up the pace to get to 100,000 posts.At least I know I have more than 17,212.Anyway, a special thanks to everyone who has visited Techdirt over the years, whether you've read all 50,000 of my posts, or this is your first one. It's been quite a journey, and it wouldn't have happened if no one ever read anything I wrote...

Our nation's prisons and jails are coronavirus incubators. Everyone inside is stacked on top of each other and the notion of "social distance" doesn't have much meaning in a place where sheltering in place means breathing the air of everyone else being forcibly sheltered in place.Taking the risk of appearing soft on crime, some states have begun releasing at-risk prisoners, subject to a long list of exceptions that still leaves plenty of people in jail (and plenty of people tasked with watching over them). Since most crimes don't come with death sentences, it seems kind of cruel and unusual to subject minor criminals to the increased possibility of dying, but only a small percentage of inmates meet the criteria for release.However, enough of them have that Rikers Island -- New York City's most infamous jail -- has seen its population dwindle to its World War II numbers. Like most jails, Rikers Island's population includes people who have yet to be convicted of a crime -- jailed until their trial date. With courts handling fewer cases than usual, jailings have become more indefinite than usual while awaiting trial.Testing has ramped up in federal prisons and local jails, bringing with them severe spikes in confirmed cases. This never looks good on the COVID-19 balance sheet, but jam enough people into enclosed spaces and bad things develop quickly during pandemics.Releasing at-risk inmates is a good idea, even if it's still mostly an unpopular one. The state of New Jersey decided to show some much-needed compassion by releasing some of its inmates. But that compassion came tied to a long list of restrictions that somehow included First Amendment violations, as NJ.com reports.

The long saga of Georgia locking up its laws under copyright is (hopefully) officially over, with a Supreme Court ruling that says pretty explicitly that the law must be in the public domain. If you don't recall, this case started years ago. The state of Georgia has a somewhat odd way of publishing its official code. Every new law is published, by state edict, in the "Official Code of Georgia Annotated" or the OGCA. Every new law explicitly says that it will be published in the OCGA. The tricky copyright issue came from the "Annotated" part of that. Annotations are (mostly) summaries of judicial interpretations of the law, and the state of Georgia outsourced the annotating to the private company LexisNexis. LexisNexis would write the annotations, for which it received a copyright, and then assign the copyright to the Georgia government. While Georgia put up a free version of the unannotated law, to get the annotated version -- which, again, is the "official" law of the state -- you either had to pay or to register with a website that included significant (and highly questionable) restrictions. In response, Carl Malamud, who has devoted much of his life's work to making sure that the laws of the world are freely accessible to those who are ruled by those laws, posted a free copy of the OGCA to the web.In response, Georgia first demanded he take it down, then it sued him for copyright infringement. The state initially won in the district court, but then was overturned on appeal, with the 11th Circuit saying that you can't copyright the law. Both sides appealed to the Supreme Court -- with Georgia wanting to continue locking up the law, and with Malamud wanting a precedent that applied beyond just the 11th Circuit. For what it's worth, even after the appeals court ruled in Malamud's favor, the state bent over backwards to try to block Carl Malamud from getting a copy of the OGCA. Yes, they didn't want him to get a copy of the state's official law, which is as crazy as it sounds.Earlier today, the Supreme Court ruled mostly in favor of Carl Malamud and free access to our laws, though there is a bit of weirdness in the overall ruling. The key part is the most important though. You just can't copyright the law.

When the coronavirus crisis hit, several countries saw an opportunity to engage in/expand domestic surveillance. Unsurprisingly, China and Hong Kong were some of the first to step up their snooping. But it was Israel that quickly deployed one of the more concerning virus-tracking programs: opening up a massive collection of cellphone data to its national security force, Shin Bet.This was done without any legislative discussion or input from the millions of stakeholders whose cell data had just become a plaything for Shin Bet. To make matters worse, the backup plan involved Israel's premier malware merchant, NSO Group, which has offered its spy tools to governments to spy on journalists, attorneys, and activists.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's unilateral declaration that telcos' data stores were open for government business may have been premature. While there's definitely value in tracking infected members of the population, a more voluntary program would have been the place to start.The nation's High Court has at least temporarily blocked Shin Bet's use of cell location data.

Beelinguapp uses new techniques to help you learn to read a second language. It shows the same exact text in two languages, side by side. At the same time, it's an audiobook, and with its unique karaoke reading, you'll follow the audio in the text on both sides. There are many texts available in 14 languages including Spanish, English, German, Korean, French, and more. The texts go from fairy tales, news, to science papers and novels; and new ones are added every week. It's on sale for $40.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.

One of the most important Supreme Court rulings in the patent space is the so-called Alice ruling in 2014 which should have effectively spelled the end of software patents (even though the ruling doesn't exactly say that). The ruling just says that you shouldn't get patents on software that "does no more than require a generic computer to perform generic computer functions." As we noted at the time... that's basically all software that is found on computers and personal devices. Sure, there may be some specialized machines, and, fine, let them get patents. But based on this ruling, nearly all software patents should be rejected.And, for a little while it seemed like that was happening. There were stories of the Patent Office rejecting a bunch of patents based on this ruling and things seemed to be heading in a good direction. Bad patents for generic software were not being allowed. But something changed. Indeed, after a general plateau in patents granted after Alice, patents started to go back up again.While some patent system supporters have been claiming that various Supreme Court decisions, such as Alice, have destroyed their ability to patent their non-patentable concepts, reality shows that the PTO has continued approving plenty of awful patents.And, now we know why. The US Patent Office has just released quite an eye-opening report regarding how it responded to the Alice decision entitled Adjusting to Alice. The TL;DR summary: "After Alice we started rejecting a lot more patents, but then Patent Office bosses issued "new guidance" that effectively overruled Alice, and we're back to approving bad patents again!"They didn't quite put it that way, but that seems to be the clearest interpretation of the report. First, they say what happened after the Alice decision:

For many years in the early aughts, broadband providers insisted they needed to impose usage caps and costly overage fees to help manage network congestion. By 2015, leaked documents from Comcast revealed that was never true. In the years since, even industry CEOs have acknowledged that the limits are little more than an additional tax on captive customers in uncompetitive U.S. broadband markets.As COVID-19 struck, ISPs quickly bowed to pressure to eliminate such restrictions so home-bound Americans weren't inundated with significantly higher bills. In a press release, Comcast makes it clear that its network has (gasp), performed perfectly well under the added load -- despite a 32% increase in upstream traffic and 18% increase in downstream traffic. There's been a 77% surge in gaming downloads, a 37% bump in streaming video consumption, and a 228% bump in VOIP and teleconferencing use. This is, Comcast says, causing no issues for Comcast:

This week, both our winners on the insightful side come in response to one particular comment from Australia's treasurer about the country forcing Google and Facebook to pay news organizations for sending them traffic, which he described as something that will "help to create a level playing field". Anonymous Anonymous Coward took first place with a baffled refutation:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2015, Sony was once again warning the media not to report on leaked emails — and they even sent a letter to Techdirt, to which we publicly responded — while MPAA boss Chris Dodd was implying that the US should go after Wikileaks for publishing them. Perhaps because the emails revealed things like how the MPAA pirated clips from Google commercials to make its own propaganda videos, and strategized about how to "tell the positive side" of internet censorship. Meanwhile, major record labels were trying to get SOPA by the back door, via a lawsuit against MP3Skull, and the war on owning-what-you-buy was being waged on fronts from GM vehicles to DVDs.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2010, since everyone had already seen ACTA after the full text leaked, the USTR decided it was time to release it. The revised text was only slightly less awful than expected, and of course was missing one piece of information that would have been especially interesting: what each country was pushing for.Also this week in 2010: Google began releasing stats on info and takedown requests from governments, a look at piracy stats showed the UK ones to be just as bogus as US ones and revealed that the MPAA unsurprisingly refused to share details on how it collected its numbers, and the Canadian entertainment industry was launching a new media campaign to push for draconian copyright laws.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2005, Verizon's CEO was deftly responding to consumer demands by complaining about the very fact that customers want any kind of service at all, while the ISP war on VoIP was bringing more companies in more countries into the fray, as was the recording industry's war on lyrics websites. We took a closer look at the entertainment industry's relationship with federal law enforcement, Microsoft's weak-sauce attempts to keep Encarta competitive with Wikipedia, and the latest impossible promise of perfect DRM (coming just as other providers of copy protection software got locked in a patent battle). This was also the week that Adobe bought Macromedia.

Techdirt has just written about France's incredibly hypocritical attitude to privacy when it comes to contact tracing apps for COVID-19. The European Commission seems to be rather more consistent in this area. As well as pushing privacy legislation like the GDPR and ePrivacy Directive, it has released a series of documents designed to help EU Member States create tracing apps without compromising on citizens' privacy. For example, on April 8, it adopted a "Recommendation to support exit strategies through mobile data and apps", which called for "a joint toolbox towards a common coordinated approach for the use of smartphone apps that fully respect EU data protection standards". Details followed a week later, when the European Commission announced a pan-EU toolbox for "efficient contact tracing apps to support gradual lifting of confinement measures". A 44-page document spelled out in some detail (pdf) the "essential requirements" for national apps deployed in the region -- that they should be:

As we've been discussing, esports is having something of a moment during the COVID-19 shutdown. While it's been interesting to see the general uptick in interest for esports globally, it's been equally interesting to watch professional sporting organizations and leagues, that can longer operate in real life, shift quickly to putting professional players behind gamepads and broadcasting esports matches instead. NASCAR was the first to jump on this and has certainly set the quality standard, but racing was quickly followed by other major professional sports leagues.And now the NHL is coming online as well. In an announcement, the league said it will be hosting an NHL 20 players tournament featuring players from every team. They even have a major sponsor for it.