Techdirt

For decades, broadband providers have abused the lack of meaningful competition in the telecom market by not only refusing to shore up historically awful customer service, but by raising rates hand over fist. This usually involves leaving the advertised price largely the same, but pummeling customers with all manner of misleading fees and surcharges that drive up the actual price you'll be paying each month. And by and large regulators from both major political parties have been perfectly okay with this practice, despite it effectively being false advertising.CenturyLink (combined by the merger of Qwest, CenturyTel and Embarq) has been exceptionally talented when it comes to such fees. A few years ago the company began charging its broadband customers an "Internet Cost Recovery Fee," which the company's website explains as such:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is an anonymous comment about the use of FOSTA to go after companies that are totally disconnected from the content in question, like MailChimp:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2015, the administration made the meaningless gesture of sanctioning North Korea over the Sony hack, while James Clapper was calling it the most serious cyberattack on the US to date, implying there have been no serious ones, and Neil deGrasse Tyson was offering up the incredibly helpful and realistic suggestion that the solution is to simply create unhackable systems. The MPAA was trying to get regulators to force ISPs to block sites "at the border", while still pursuing their campaign to get links to pirated content out of Google — a strategy that is both ineffective and self-defeating. And we saw more bogus DMCA takedowns, of course, both mundane and personal.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2010, there was plenty more copyright panic from companies: Ninentdo shut down a fan-made Zelda movie, Sony was not supporting its own movies for the Oscars out of piracy fears over sending out DVD screeners, music publishers forced another lyrics site offline, and the UFC announced plans to start suing individuals for piracy. And even as many indie filmmakers were realizing that releasing movies for free online has many benefits, one indie record label in Finland was insisting it wouldn't sign any new bands until the government stops piracy. Meanwhile, Bono came out in favor of using China-style internet censorship to fight piracy (even as China's efforts were failing in many ways), garnering confused support from Nirvana bassist Krist Novoselic even as he admitted he didn't really know much about the subject. And we looked at one attempt by an ISP to actually fight back against bogus DMCA notices, which only highlighted how this is almost impossible.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2005, there was some debate about the nature of apparent security loopholes in Microsoft's DRM, while Bill Gates was deploying the ol' accusations of "communism" against those who call for copyright reform. Another court told the MPAA it has to actually file lawsuits to get customer information from ISPs, while the BSA was seeking to codify the just-send-a-subpoena option right into the DMCA. After an initial loss, Geico was continuing its trademark crusade against Google, while Toronto's airport was getting into the trademark threat game to stop a silly blog that posts photos of urinals. And we were completely flabbergasted by the shocking results of a critical study, which revealed the oh-so-secret fact that... entertainment industry executives were scared of file sharing.

Things have gotten worse and worse for Amazon's Ring over the past several months. Once just the pusher of a snitch app that allowed city residents to engage in racial profiling from the comfort of their homes, Ring is now synonymous with poor security practices and questionable "partnerships" with hundreds of law enforcement agencies around the nation.Ring owners recently discovered how easily their cameras could be hijacked by assholes with no moral compass and too much time on their hands. Using credentials harvested from security breaches, online forum members took control of people's cameras to entertain a podcast audience who listened along as hijackers verbally abused Ring owners and their children.Ring is now being sued for selling such an easily-compromised product. Ring's response to the original reports of hijackings was to blame customers for not taking their own security more seriously. Ring does recommend two-factor authentication but that's about all it does. It does not inform users when login attempts are made from unrecognized IP addresses or devices, and does not put the system on lockdown after a certain number of failed attempts are made.Yes, users should use strong passwords (and not reuse passwords), but blaming customers for engaging in behavior most customers will engage in is unproductive. Instead of making two-factor authentication a requirement before deployment, Ring has just repeatedly pointed to its prior statements about its "encouragement" of 2FA -- an "encouragement" that is mostly comprised of defensive statements issued in response to another negative news cycle.Since it can't keep blaming its millions of customers for its own failings, Ring is taking a very, very small step in the direction of actually taking its customers' security seriously. [Please hold your tepid applause until the end of the announcement.]

If you've been on the internet for basically any length of time, you probably know about the Downfall parody videos, sometimes referred to as the "Hitler Finds Out" videos. These are videos that take a clip from a 2004 German movie about the final days of Hitler, and post over them English subtitles of Hitler getting angry over... just about anything. We wrote about it a decade ago, and while the Downfall parodies have become somewhat less common these days, it's still a bit surprising that anyone might be offended by them.But, alas, in a yet another (more real world) example of how content moderation is impossible to do well, a popular senior lecturer of accounting, Catherine West Lowry, at UMass Amherst was removed from her teaching role after a student complained that she showed a Downfall parody about accounting made by a former student to the class (found via Reason.com).To make the class more fun, Lowry had long offered students extra credit for producing entertaining or "fun" videos about concepts in the accounting class, and someone back in 2009 (at the height of the Downfall parody popularity) made this one about accounting concepts and the class:On November 12th, Lowry showed that video to the class after some students asked her to share a video:

For much of this year, broadband customers have been complaining that Frontier Communications, the nation's third-biggest telco, had been charging its customers a rental fee for modems they already owned. Normally, you're supposed to be able to buy your own modem instead of paying your ISP a rental fee upwards of $10 per month. To nab some extra dough from captive customers, Frontier basically decided to charge its customers a rental fee anyway, giving them a polite, though giant, middle finger when they complained.And because the FCC's net neutrality repeal effectively neutered the agency's ability to police this sort of behavior (not that the Pai FCC would anyway), consumers who complained to the agency were met with a glassy-eyed stare:

Buckle up folks, because this story takes a few twists and turns, and some of them may make you angry -- though I hope people will hold back their kneejerk reactions, because that kind of thing is what created this mess in the first place.As you probably recall, a year ago, there was a whole viral media shitstorm regarding an encounter in Washington DC between some kids from Covington Catholic High School in Kentucky, Native American activist Nathan Phillips, and a bunch of other people, including members of a group known as the Black Israelites, who appeared to be egging everyone on. A first video that made the viral rounds on Twitter just showed the encounter between CCH student Nick Sandmann, clad in a red MAGA hat, and staring down Phillips who was banging a drum. Later videos added in more context, including the Black Israelites and their role in the whole thing. One of the points a few people raised is that your interpretation of the whole thing is very much a Rorschach test for what you already believe. You can reasonably argue that people completely misrepresented the encounter and you can reasonably argue that they did not.It is a subjective issue. You see it through your own context and experiences, and it comes down to each and everyone's opinion. I'd personally argue that there was a little bit of truth in nearly all of the viewpoints, and not having the entire context is not akin to false statements, but rather simply not having the full picture. As more context was added, many people changed their views, and that's cool too.But given that these are subjective opinions, the idea that one might sue over them is simply batshit insane. And yet, people rushed to sue. In particular, we highlighted how the CCH student at the center of all of this sued the Washington Post, and later both NBC and CNN, for their coverage. Sandmann was represented by L. Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry. (For what it's worth, Wood recently lost that high profile defamation case against Elon Musk on behalf of cave diver Vern Unsworth). We found little in the lawsuits to be compelling, and were not at all surprised when a judge tossed out the one against the Washington Post, noting that everything they published was protected by the 1st Amendment. However, that case has been reinstated on fairly narrow grounds, following an amended complaint that targets some very specific language used by the Post. I'd still be surprised if he won, but the more narrow claims do at least have slightly more validity to them, especially if the court agrees that Sandmann is not a public figure (which would lower the bar for a defamation claim).Earlier this week, news broke that CNN and Sandmann had agreed to settle that complaint -- and once again we had a bit of a Rorschach test. The terms of the settlement appear to be totally confidential, which is disappointing, but not at all uncommon. It is, in fact, possible that no money exchanged hands at all. However, many people who support Sandmann are insisting that this is vindication for him, even if that's not at all clear. Some are even saying that CNN must have paid "in the millions." Again, no information on the settlement is public, and to say that this was vindication or to speculate on any settlement amount seems ridiculous -- especially given that the entire thrust of the lawsuit was about news media commenting on issues without knowing the full details or context of the story.But the story then got even stranger. Because on Wednesday, PJ Media had a headline trumpeting that author Reza Aslan would "face the music" for tweeting that Sandmann had "a punchable face." Already that should have raised alarm bells, because there is literally nothing at all defamatory in saying someone has "a punchable face." PJ Media -- who at times pretends to support free speech -- acted as though this was a legitimate lawsuit. Of course, tellingly, even though they said they had a copy of the complaint, reporter Tyler O'Neil did not link to or publish the lawsuit. Perhaps because it's utter and complete garbage. You can read it here.It was actually filed last August. And here's where we'll go back a bit. Right after the original Sandmann incident, we had noted that infamously silly lawyer Robert Barnes, who has filed multiple trollish lawsuits that have flopped spectacularly, announced that he would represent any of the Covington kids pro bono in filing lawsuits.Yet, you will note that Sandmann's lawsuits were not filed with Barnes as his lawyer, but Lin Wood and Todd McMurtry. However, the lawsuit that PJ Media was trumpeting, about a comment on Sandmann, was filed by Barnes. So this lead to some head scratching. Had Sandmann retained both lawyers for different cases? The answer is no. Barnes simply filed lawsuits on behalf of the Covington kids as John Does.It's not even clear that any of the Covington kids are actual clients of his. They may be, but the filing doesn't confirm that this is actually true. And the key Covington kid, Sandmann, has made it absolutely clear that he is not a Barnes' client, and that this lawsuit is obviously bullshit -- because with regards to Aslan's statement, it only references Sandmann (and his allegedly "punchable face") rather than any of the other Covington kids:If you're unable to see that image, it's Sandmann asking Barnes on Twitter:

As of February 2020, the existing CCNA certification will be obsolete. The NEW 2020 CCNA certification allows you to take one exam that encompasses a multitude of subjects, instead of several exams for all subjects. CCNA 200-301 is the new industry standard networking certification for network administrators, support engineers and data center operations. Now, iCollege brings you this Complete 2020 Cisco CCNA Certification Prep Course to help you feel less overwhelmed with the CCNA certification. Over 64 lectures, you'll cover newer topics including automation, programmability, SDN, wireless, and security fundamentals, while also learning how to configure and manage wired and wireless network connectivity for the new internet connection model. It's on sale for $39.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 pretty much everyone else, New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is using facial recognition software. Like pretty much everyone else, it doesn't really have any success stories to share.

Few things are more satisfying than watching copyright trolling efforts disintegrate. Prolific abuser of the court system, Malibu Media, has been slowly self-destructing over the past few years.In 2016, Malibu Media sued its legal reps because they were at least as corrupt as Malibu Media is. From the filings, it appeared attorney Keith Lipscomb wasn't sharing the settlements he extracted from alleged pirates. Malibu's new reps, Pillar Law Group, filed the suit for Malibu. In the court documents, Lipscomb said he felt the copyright trolling business model had outlived its usefulness and was no longer profitable. While this was likely true, it also did double duty as an excuse for Lipscomb's failure to send Malibu its cut of the settlements.The relationship with Pillar Law only lasted until last summer. As Fight Copyright Trolls notes, X-Art'/Malibu's owner is now engaged in a legal dispute with the law group in the Los Angeles County Court.Roughly about the same time this suit was filed, Malibu was sued by two investors who were promised half of all settlements and half of all profits from Malibu's media. Apparently, they haven't been paid either.This leads us to the current litigation, brought by Malibu's most recent legal reps. Once again, the non-sharing of settlement funds is the issue.

For years cable customers have been plagued by content blackouts as cable providers and broadcasters bicker over new programming contracts. So called "retransmission feuds" usually go something like this: a broadcaster demands a cable company pay twice as much money to carry the same content. The pay TV provider balks, and blacks out the aforementioned content. Consumers spend a few months paying for content they can't access, while the two sides bitch at each other and try to leverage consumer anger against the other guy. After a while a new confidential deal is struck, and customers face a higher bill with little to show for it. Rinse, wash, repeat.While some might think the innovative streaming revolution is going to fix stupidity like this, evidence suggests that's not likely. This week, AT&T's creatively-named streaming app, AT&T TV Now, was unceremoniously pulled from all Roku streaming hardware after a contract between the two companies expired and they couldn't agree on a new one. As a result, existing users can still access the AT&T streaming apps on the platform, but any new AT&T TV subscribers will suddenly find the app won't work on the most popular streaming platform on the market:

Once again, another crime has been solved with the help of smart devices that shows "going dark" is mainly just an FBI product it's having trouble moving in such a sunshine-y market.Third party apps and a surveillance camera allowed investigators to solve one crime (by determining it never happened) and charge someone for the crime that actually happened. [via Slashdot]

We've pointed out for years that there's always been some level of confusion about the boundaries of the "non-commercial" tag on a Creative Commons license. There are lots of things that are kind of fuzzy about it. Does it mean you just can't sell the work? Or does it mean you can't even use it on a website if that website has ads on it? Indeed, we've worried that the non-commercial license created a bit of a branding problem for Creative Commons. However, to the organization's credit, it has spent plenty of time and effort over the past decade or so to try to clarify some of the confusion about non-commercial licensing, saying that it really just refers to the direct sale of such works.For the past few years, that's also meant that Creative Commons, the organization, has had to step in to an ongoing lawsuit over such a license, and inform the court what a non-commercial license actually means.The issue, in the case, was that an educational non-profit, Great Minds, sued various copy shops for making copies of its educational materials, even though they were licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. That license says the work can be copied, but only under non-commercial terms. Great Minds argued that because the copy shops, like FedEx and Office Depot, made money from the copies, that made it commercial. Creative Commons kept telling the court that this was a misreading of "non-commercial" and in the Office Depot case, the 9th Circuit has agreed.It's a nice, quick, and simple ruling:

Breathalyzers have been in use for more than 100 years at this point and we still don't have all the kinks worked out. Testing equipment used by law enforcement frequently isn't calibrated or maintained correctly. Some devices have been set up improperly, which leads directly to false positives when the tests are deployed.Unfortunately, impaired driving isn't going away. And neither are the tools cops like well enough to deploy in the field, but apparently not well enough to engage in routine maintenance or periodic quality control testing. This is already a problem for citizens, who can find themselves behind bars if the testing equipment is faulty. The problem is only going to get worse as marijuana legalization spreads to more states.There's currently no field test equipment that detects marijuana impairment. A company in California thinks it has a solution.

Just last week we wrote about the good news that the European Patent Office had decided to reject AI-generated inventions for patent applications and explained why this was good. As we noted, prior to that, most of the discussion on AI and monopoly protections had been focused on copyright, and there are various lawyers and law firms eagerly pushing the idea that AI should be able to obtain copyrights, despite it going against the entire basis of copyright law. So far, we haven't had a real test of the issue in the US (though the monkey selfie case could be seen as a trial balloon for copyright for non-human creators), but apparently at least one Chinese court has already gone in the other direction.A court in Shenzhen has decided that articles generated by AI are entitled to copyright protection, according to the National Law Review. The case involved the popular Chinese site Tencent, and a news article generated by an AI software called Dreamwriter:

Ring never fails to disappoint. And by "disappoint," I mean never fails to be disappointing. This pleases me. So, I guess Ring never fails to please… by being incessantly disappointing.I realize this is beginning to resemble a beating that continues long past the point the victim has lapsed into unconsciousness. But if Ring hadn't made itself such an inviting punching bag, I would not continue to rain down printed blows on its oh so very soft body.Ring first grabbed our attention by offering up a snitch app that encouraged neighbors to start talking about suspicious people in their neighborhood. This app also happened to be a portal for the voluntary sharing of footage captured by Ring cameras, most of which were built into Ring's "smart" doorbells.From there, things went from bad to worse to godawful to horrendous to PR-team-on-constant-suicide-watch. It has been super-enjoyable for me (and hopefully for Techdirt readers) for two reasons:

Microsoft Office is the most popular office suite on the planet. Stream Skill gives you The Ultimate Microsoft Office Mastery Bundle, combining 6 of their best Microsoft Office 2019 courses plus the 2016 versions of these courses. With 818 video lectures, this bundle will cover Excel, Advanced Excel, PowerPoint, and Word in 2019/365 and 2016 editions. You will receive a certificate of completion for each course, as well as downloadable follow-along exercises and testing. Master these Office essentials and watch your productivity soar. 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.

During the run up to the passage of FOSTA, we were told two key things: (1) the law was absolutely necessary to stop sex trafficking websites like Backpage, and (2) that there was no way that the law would be abused to go after perfectly innocent websites. It's pretty easy to show that both of these claims turned out to be utter bullshit. The first one was especially easy, seeing as the Feds seized the site and arrested its founders a week before FOSTA became law. The second has taken somewhat longer to show, in part because for a long while no one actually seemed to be making use of FOSTA. For a law that we were told was absolutely necessary and that any delay in passing it would mean lives put at risk, it has been notable just how few actual lawsuits have been filed under FOSTA in the 18 months or so since it became law. State attorneys general, who pushed strongly for it, claiming they needed this hole in Section 230 to go after bad actor websites have still never used the law. Not once.However, a few civil suits have just started to show up, as highlighted in a guest post at Eric Goldman's blog by FOSTA expert Alex Yelderman. She first points to two nearly identical lawsuits filed in state courts (one in Washington, one in California) against Craigslist and a bunch of hotels. Craigslist has sought to remove both to federal court as of early December. Both cases push, as Yelderman notes, "radical theories of liability" aimed at Craigslist. They also target activities that happened prior to FOSTA becoming law (as you may recall, Craigslist shut down its "erotic services" section all the way back in 2010, and then shut down all dating after FOSTA became law, noting that the liability risk was just too much).That hasn't stopped the company from getting sued under the law, though, with it claiming that just the mere fact that Craigslist had such a section a decade ago proves that it was engaged in sex trafficking under FOSTA. As Yelderman points out, the fact that FOSTA is apparently retroactive and can reach back to such things, will almost certainly be found unconstitutional. As you may recall, even the DOJ told Congress this part was unconstitutional.Even beyond that aspect, though, the claims in the lawsuit are crazy. They assume that FOSTA removed the requirement for knowledge on the part of intermediaries like Craigslist, even though supporters of the law insisted that wasn't the case. Indeed, a key part of the DOJ's defense of FOSTA in the Woodhull case that challenged the law (and which the district court rejected), was that FOSTA made no such change. As Yelderman explains:

In 2018, you might recall that Ajit Pai had to cancel his CES appearance due to clearly idiotic death threats. In 2019, Pai had to cancel a scheduled appearance due to the government shutdown. Fast forward to 2020 and Ajit Pai finally made it back to CES, and he used the opportunity to... make up some nonsense about net neutrality.In a cozy, unchallenging chat with the CTA's Gary Shapiro, Pai once again trotted out the canard that modest net neutrality rules crushed US broadband sector investment, insisting that his hugely unpopular decision to kill net neutrality has resulted in, by golly, some amazing things for American consumers:

It looks like the FBI wants to relitigate the San Bernardino shooting. After that tragedy, the FBI tried (and failed) to obtain legal precedent forcing cellphone manufacturers to crack open seized phones at the drop of a warrant. Finally, a third party sold a solution to the FBI that opened the phone and allowed it to recover nothing useful whatsoever from the shooter's device.The FBI was displeased that it didn't get this precedent. Internal communications showed FBI officials were doing everything they could to avoid using a third-party solution. The theoretical existence of evidence related to a tragic shooting was the only leverage the FBI had and a private company's cracking service took that leverage away. It could no longer claim approaching Apple directly was the only way to access the contents of the phone.The FBI is trying again. It has more locked phones and another shooting to use as leverage.

We've discussed red light cameras many times in the past, most often to point out how they really aren't great at providing any benefit in vehicle safety, but are quite good at filling up the coffers of local governments on the backs of motorists. Given that these are essentially profit centers run by governments that aren't well suited to maximizing profits, the contracts for these red light cameras are typically outsourced to private interests. And if that seems like a recipe for rampant corruption... well... yeah. Everyone from judges to my beloved home city of Chicago has found themselves being investigated, and sometimes charged, with wild corruption as part of these red light camera contracts. Contracts that, again, don't make anyone any safer.It's bad enough that the Illinois State Comptroller has decided to opt out of its duties to collect on red light camera fees entirely.

A Connecticut cop, who doesn't like the things commenters said about him on a local blog, has decided he's legally in the right to demand the identifying info of those commenters from the person who runs the blog.

Last week we announced our latest Gaming Like It's 1924: Public Domain Game Jam, and among the newly public domain works first released in 1924 is George Gershwin's classic Rhapsody in Blue, which you might better know as the United Airlines theme song.This is extremely noteworthy, because during the debate over the Mickey Mouse Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act fight in 1998, the Gershwin Estate was among the most vocal supporters and lobbyists in seeking an extension for the copyright. Indeed, the head of the Gershwin Estate, George's nephew Marc was particularly worried about losing artistic control over his uncle's work. Indeed, he seemed particularly worried that someone might make rap music out of his uncle's work:

Reverse warrants have been deployed again. And, again, Wisconsin law enforcement agencies are involved. The feds used a reverse warrant to track down robbers who hit a bank at a strip mall just outside of Milwaukee earlier this year.The feds are at it again. This time it's the ATF and the targets are two people suspected of arson.The "reverse" warrant affidavit [PDF] spends a great deal of time letting us know what Special Agent Thomas Greenwich knows: that phones generate a ton of location info using a variety of connections (WiFi, Bluetooth, cell towers) and this information tends to get hoovered up almost immediately by service providers. In this instance the target is Google and the ATF wants any records that fall within two geofenced areas surrounding the sites of two suspicious fires.If there's any upside here, it's that the geofenced locations won't be sweeping in as many non-suspects as other reverse warrants we've seen. And it includes photos depicting the areas targeted by the non-targeted warrant, which helps judges (and interested citizens) see how much potential data the ATF is targeting.There were two suspected arsons in Milwaukee, located less than 5 miles apart, occurring within three weeks of each other. Both started at the back of the houses and both used accelerants. And both houses had a common denominator: John P. Hunt. Hunt had been evicted from one address (4047 N. 7th) two weeks prior to the first fire, and had been trying to claim tools left behind by a deceased family member, which were stored at the second address (5915 N. 42nd St.). This included one unscheduled visit to reclaim the disputed possessions which had been sorted out by local law enforcement four days before the second suspicious fire.Here are the geofence coordinates included with the affidavit:The geofences here are about as limited as they can be, given the nature of the crime. These are much more constrained than others we've seen -- ones that cover entire blocks in heavily-trafficked areas.That being said, there are still a few problems. First, coarse location data isn't precise enough to exclude people living in surrounding houses. The geofenced areas will also capture foot and road traffic that passed through the area during the time frame investigators are looking at.Finally, there's the problem that simply does not ever go away, no matter how tightly-constrained the geofence is: these warrants work in reverse, providing law enforcement with location data on people who aren't suspected of committing criminal acts and allowing investigators to use a pile of non-suspicious data to develop reasonable suspicion.This data request seems almost extraneous. The ATF already appears to have a couple of suspects -- ones well-known to both federal agents and the Milwaukee Police Department. The MPD executed a search warrant at the 4047 N. 7th Street address last summer (following "10-15 visits" to the house by MPD officers during that same summer), recovering "a large amount of narcotics and several firearms." John Hunt -- the person connecting the two torched properties -- was charged with several drug and gun-related offenses.Given this fact, it would seem investigators might want to start with John Hunt and then work their way outward if that doesn't pan out. Instead, they're demanding location info on everyone in the area and then hoping to narrow this list of info down to the person (or people) they already suspect. Yes, it's always useful to have as much evidence in hand as possible before arresting someone, but that law enforcement desire needs to be weighed against the impact it will have on non-suspects just because they happened to connect to cell towers in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Everyday computer users are juggling huge amounts of data, so it makes sense that you're taking care of that data responsibly. With Degoo you get up to 10 TB of secured backup space from which to manage and share files with awesome simplicity. With high-speed transfers from a database that offers more backup space than Dropbox, OneDrive, and Google Drive combined, you'll love how easy it is to keep tabs on all of your valuable data. 1 TB is on sale for $50, 2 TB for $60, 3 TB for $70, or 10 TB for $100.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.

Back in August, Apple kicked off an already questionable lawsuit against Corellium, makers of virtualization software that would let users create and interact with "virtual" iOS devices. It is a useful tool for a variety of reasons, including (importantly) for security researchers trying to hunt down bugs on a virtual iPhone. Over the last few months, security researchers in particular have been raising the alarm about this lawsuit. Then, just before the New Year, Apple made things much, much worse, with its amended complaint, that takes Section 1201 of the DMCA to new and even more ridiculous heights.As Corellium's CEO Amanda Gorton noted in an open letter, this appeared to be Apple using copyright law to completely shutdown the idea of jailbreaking:

Buried beneath the unrelenting hype surrounding fifth-generation (5G) wireless is a quiet but growing consensus: the technology is being over-hyped, and early incarnations were rushed to market in a way that prioritized marketing over substance. That's not to say that 5G won't be a good thing when it arrives at scale several years from now, but early offerings have been almost comical in their shortcomings. AT&T has repeatedly lied about 5G availability by pretending its 4G network is 5G. Verizon has repeatedly hyped early non-standard launches that, when reviewers actually got to take a look, were found to be barely available.As carriers ramp up their marketing hype and promote 5G "launches" that aren't really full launches, that theme is only continuing. One ZDNet reporter recently wandered around Miami -- a "launched" T-Mobile 5G market -- only to find coverage was nonexistent and phone support was even worse. He ultimately concluded that T-mobile's definition of "nationwide 5G" most definitely leaves something to be desired:

Oh boy. Facebook has just added fuel to the anti-encryption fire. And by doing nothing more than something it should be doing: notifying users that their device may have been compromised by malware.The Wall Street Journal article covering this standard notification is full of quotes from government officials who aren't happy a suspected terrorist was informed his phone had possibly been infected by targeted malware. [Non-paywalled version here.]

You will recall that Nintendo, as part of its sweeping new war on ROM sites initiated a year or so ago, went particularly hard at RomUniverse and its site operator, Matthew Storman. Differentiating RomUniverse from other ROM sites is some combination of the fact that it's run out of California as opposed to overseas, that the site is also a place to go get lots of other media that sure looks to be infringing on copyright, and Storman's verbose attitude in making public comments that don't paint him or his site in the best light. At the onset, as part of an attempt to crowdfund its legal battle with Nintendo, RomUniverse trotted out the claim that it was offering ROMs in an attempt to preserve video gaming history. It wasn't a particularly believable argument given the rest of the site's behavior and RomUniverse quickly opted for other legal arguments in court.Storman appears to be defending himself in the matter and attempted to have the case dismissed on two grounds. The first is that Safe Harbor protections extend to RomUniverse, which Storman claims is simply a service provider and not participating or reaping commercial benefit from infringing material. Storman claims that Nintendo has acknowledged RomUniverse as a service provider by sending DMCA takedown requests to the admin for the site, at least some of which have been complied with. That, unfortunately, is not really how any of this works, as Nintendo details in its own response to Storman's motion.

The Florida state Supreme Court is being asked to settle the open question as to whether compelled password production violates the Fifth Amendment. (via FourthAmendment.com)Last October, a state Appeals Court decided that it did. In a case involving an accident caused by a drunk driver, law enforcement sought to compel the suspect to unlock his phone so they could search it for evidence. It's unclear what evidence of drunk driving the police hoped to find on the phone, but that's the case that first made its way to one of the state's appellate courts.It all worked out, though. The court ruled that compelling a password is a Fifth Amendment issue because it could force the suspect to hand over evidence to be used against him by prosecutors. Another state appellate court came to the same conclusion earlier this year, ruling that compelling password production to unlock a robbery suspect's encrypted device violated the Constitution.In both cases, prosecutors didn't really care about the password. That's not what they were after. They wanted what was on the phones, which could be evidence.It's a big "could," though. The state didn't bring much with it but conclusory arguments which are very much not the same thing as establishing the needed "foregone conclusion." Without it, the state is seeking to violate the Fifth Amendment, and for the lousiest of reasons.

Body cameras were supposed to bring more transparency and accountability to law enforcement agencies. The change that was promised hasn't arrived. Body camera footage does little for the public. Every so often, it results in a successful lawsuit and/or prosecution.What body camera footage does best is what cops do best: lock people up. Prosecutors are making the most of recordings, using them as evidence against criminal suspects.When the idea of watching the police first started gaining traction, officials and politicians opposed to anything that might make cops more accountable claimed the recordings were nothing but a "gotcha" tactic. In their minds, someone would be reviewing all recorded footage every day, just waiting for a cop to screw up.This was a stupid stance to take. Not only was this fantasy logistically impossible, but there's hardly anyone inside law enforcement agencies all that interested in punishing officers, even when they've screwed up. What has actually happened is the millions of hours of footage recorded every day is uploaded and forgotten about until someone needs it. It usually takes a lawsuit to get this footage released, or at least the threat of one. Defense attorneys looking for footage to defend their clients must subject themselves to a variety of third-party user agreements before they're allowed to see anything.Since the police aren't going to police themselves -- not even with a slew of new self-policing tools -- accountability and transparency must be forced on agencies by other government entities. But this has been very slow in developing. And what we're being given can't even generously be called a half-measure.One (ONE!) law enforcement agency in Indiana has agreed to random inspections of body camera footage. The agreement is the result of the shooting of a black man by white police officers. No footage exists of this incident, despite the fact the officer who shot the man had a cruiser equipped with a dash cam and was wearing a body camera.The new inspection rules are incredibly lax, pretty much ensuring no South Bend cop will ever be the "victim" of this barely-there "gotcha tactic."

Remember Blackbird Technologies? This was the patent trolling firm made up almost entirely of lawyers who insisted they weren't a law firm... they just bought up patents for basically nothing and then threatened and/or sued a bunch of companies claiming patent infringement. A few years back it was suing basically everyone over some dubious patents. But it made a pretty massive strategic error in suing Cloudlfare because Cloudflare decided to fight back, not just to win its case, but to invalidate as many Blackbird patents as possible, while simultaneously reporting the ethics violations involved in pretending not to be a law firm when you really are (and in what appeared to be trying to purchase the bare right to sue, rather than the actual full patent rights).That process ended poorly for Blackbird, who lost in court and on appeal, in a fairly demeaning way (the courts gave Cloudflare a complete and total victory -- and the appeal was even ruled upon within days of the hearing, which is almost unheard of in such cases). It still cost Cloudflare hundreds of thousands of dollars, but Blackbird had lost many of its employees and had cut back significantly on filing new lawsuits.And now it's in even more trouble. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC, the appeals court that handles all patent cases) has upheld a lower court's order telling Blackbird it needs to pay $363,243.80 in legal fees to one of the companies it tried to shake down, Health in Motion LLC (HIM). The court clearly sees what's going on here, and its recounting of how Blackbird tried to get out of the case is... really something to behold. First, Blackbird sued and, following the typical patent trolling playbook, asked for $80,000 to settle. That number is (purposely) significantly less than it would take to fight the case in court. That's how the whole patent trolling shakedown process works. Sue, and then offer to settle for less than it would cost the defendant, even if they won the case. But HIM also decided to fight back and told Blackbird that it should pay them for having to waste this time on lawyers. From the CAFC summary, this is a fun read (if you're confused "Appellees" is HIM, the defendant in the case):

Amazon's Ring has been uniformly terrible ever since it decided its primary market (homeowners) should be treated with less care and concern than the market it's actually courting and subsidizing (law enforcement agencies).Since it's not really in the customer service business anymore, the end users who thought they were buying some security and peace of mind have discovered they've actually become part of a law enforcement surveillance network run by a company that doesn't really seem to be in the security business.A group of forum members found Ring cameras incredibly easy to hijack. Running scripts utilizing lists of credentials harvested from the web's many security breaches, some sociopathic idiots were able to brute force their way into taking control of devices. Their favorites were the ones equipped with mics, where they could verbally abuse and taunt unsuspecting Ring owners for the enjoyment of their podcast audience. (I really wish I were making that last part up but this is the internet we have.)When the news cycle of "hacked" Ring cameras began, Ring was quick to point out this wasn't its fault. To a certain point, Ring is right. Ring says it encourages the use of two-factor authentication and strong passwords. Great. So do lots of IoT device makers. But very few are actually forcing their users to engage two-factor authentication prior to allowing the connected device to go "live" on the web. Ring isn't doing this either.It's even worse in Ring's case. Ring says it's the customers that are wrong, but it does absolutely nothing to prevent this sort of hijacking. There's no lockout after a certain number of failed logins. No warnings are sent to owners about logins from unrecognized devices or IP addresses. Repeated failed login attempts aren't flagged as suspicious. For a company supposedly in the security business, this is a pretty insecure way to run a business.It's this latest insecurity that's getting the company sued.

The Premium 2020 Project and Quality Management Bundle has 11 courses to help you learn all about the different styles of project and quality management used today. Courses cover Agile, Scrum, PMP, Six Sigma, and more. You'll also learn about risk management and cyber security. It's on sale for $46.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.

Oracle has waged a many years long war (now heading to the Supreme Court) arguing that copying APIs is copyright infringement. Many people who actually understand what an API is, have explained why that is absolutely ridiculous, but tons of non-technical (always non-technical) people keep insisting that an API is just as copyrightable as software. Indeed, they often insist that an API is no different than software itself. This includes Oracle's main lawyer on the case, Annette Hurst, who just a few months ago insisted that APIs were executable code (they are not).However, Charles Duan, over at the R Street Institute (disclosure: we've partnered with R Street on a variety of projects over the years) has written up quite an incredible article highlighting that Oracle, of all companies, appears to have copied Amazon's S3 API. Lots of companies have. But that's because copying APIs is done all the freaking time in software, because it's how you make compatible systems:

While there's little doubt that cheaper, more flexible streaming TV options are a definite step up from overpriced cable TV channel bundles, we've noted for a while how there's a problem in the sector it hasn't spent much time thinking about. As companies rush to lock down your favorite content via exclusives, users are increasingly being forced to hunt and peck among rotating catalogs to find the content they're looking for. Want to watch Star Trek? You'll need to subscribe to CBS All Access. Want to watch The Office? You'll need to subscribe to Comcast's streaming service. Friends? You'll need AT&T.The one two punch of ever shifting licensing deals and exclusives, shared among more than a dozen different services, risks over-complicating finding the content users are looking for. Push this particular idea too far in that direction, and consumers are going to simply pirate -- an ironic outcome to a decade spent trying to migrate pirates to legit streaming alternatives.

Turkey continues to be awful. The prime minister of the country, Recep "Gollum" Erdogan, continues to fight his own personal brand of "War on Terror." So far, this "war" is mostly on critics and journalists, since actual terrorism isn't something Erdogan seems to care about as much as his own reputation.Critics located all over the world have felt the proxy wrath of the frequently-besmirched PM. Some countries have been especially obliging, turning over their own citizens to face criminal charges for insulting the Turkish head of state.Journalists all over the world are feeling the heel of Erdogan's boot, the size of which is inversely proportional to the thickness of his skin. Rather than limit his censorial efforts to the war at home, Erdogan frequently calls on US tech companies to engage in censorship on his behalf. Twitter is a favorite.You're nothing if you're not on the leader boards. Erdogan sees himself as a living superlative. So it's no surprise his government is seeking to overtake the Red Granddaddy of Censorship -- China -- in the category of "Most Journalist Jailed." Presumably, the Guinness people will just mail him his award, rather than risk being swept up in his "War on Terror" for listing Nobel Prize winners or whatever.More journalists have been convicted of crimes against Herr Erdogan. Unfortunately for the authoritarian, not too many of them will actually be jailed, which isn't going to help him overtake China in the jailed journalist race. Prosecution in absentia is the new normal for Turkey since local journalists have realized staying in the country means forced retirement from their chosen profession.Alert Interpol, I guess, as though that international partnership is really interested in converting itself into an extension of Turkey's government. The "War on Terror" continues, with Turkish courts fighting the war at home by sentencing journalists self-exiling abroad.

The increasing economic, political, and military power of China is evident. Less obvious is how China and its citizens are starting to impose their views and rules on other nations in more subtle ways. For example, in February last year, Techdirt wrote about how China is actively censoring books written by Australian authors for Australian readers. The Norway Today site reports on the latest attempt by Chinese citizens to censor material in other countries. It involves a delegation of more than 40 Chinese cross-country skiers, along with 15 coaches and managers, who are in the Norwegian municipality of Meråker to train for the Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics:

Going through the history of our posts on Intuit and TurboTax will give you an incredibly frustrating recent history of Intuit's bullshit actions regarding its free tax filing program for low-income households. This all stems from a deal the IRS cut with several major tax preparation companies, which amounted essentially to the IRS promising not to offer its own free file program so long as these companies, Intuit being the largest, provided free tax filing programs to the public themselves. The outcome of this naive deal cut by the IRS was to have companies like Intuit do everything possible to hide its free file sites from the public internet by delisting it from searches, then lying to customers to avoid refunding money when they complained that they could have filed for free, and finally Intuit similarly fooling veterans into paying for services that would otherwise be free all while wrapping itself in the American flag.ProPublica did a bevy of fantastic reporting on all of this, leading to a fair amount of public outrage at how blatantly cynical Intuit behaved. It would be easy to be equally cynical in thinking that the IRS would simply sit and watch all this without taking any action. Perhaps to the surprise of many, however, it appears that the shining of the light on Intuit's actions has led the IRS to significantly change the deal it struck with tax prep companies in a way that should be very, very positive for the public.

Assaulting someone with a tweet can be a criminal act. It takes a whole lot of specifics to make it a crime, but some asshole named John Rivello managed to do just that when he sent strobe gifs to Kurt Eichenwald and apparently sent him into a seizure.Rivello did all of this under the horrible (and stupid) alias of @jew_goldstein. He also left behind a nice digital paper trial for investigators, which tied the account he used to send the strobe gifs to Eichenwald. Rivello may have used a Tracfone card to set up the accounts he used to harass Eichenwald, but these were all linked to his iPhone and his iCloud account, which helpfully included a photo of Rivello holding up his drivers license.On top of that, investigators found a bunch of DMs to other Twitter accounts stating his intent to send Eichenwald into a seizure in hopes of killing him. So, it can be a crime to send strobe gifs to epileptics, but it takes a whole lot of work to make it a chargeable offense.The Epilepsy Foundation is hoping law enforcement can find similar statements of intent elsewhere. During National Epilepsy Month, a bunch of people who are using far more oxygen than they deserve sent out hundreds of tweets containing strobe gifs and videos, utilizing the Foundation's Twitter handle and related hashtags. The Foundation points out that only a small percentage of epileptics are photosensitive, but any triggered seizure can carry the risk of serious injury or death.The Foundation's post doesn't say where these complaints have been filed or provide any other details. It obviously poses some First Amendment issues in that it's asking for the prosecution of speech, but if there's enough evidence indicating some of these dirtbags were actively seeking to harm other people, First Amendment concerns will be minimal.This brings us to another attack vector, albeit one that wasn't used in these attacks: animated PNGs. These series of images stitched together to form an animated whole would allow harassers to route around protections photosensitive epileptics used to protect themselves, like preventing autoplay of video or gif content. Twitter may not be able to do much to prevent the uploading of video and gifs containing strobe images, but it can block APNGs, which is what it is now doing.

It's become almost "common knowledge" that various social media recommendation engines "lead to radicalization." Just recently in giving a talk to telecom execs, I was told, point blank, that social media was clearly evil and clearly driving people into radicalization because "that's how you sell more ads" and that nothing I could say could convince them otherwise. Thankfully, though, there's a new study that throws some cold water on those claims, by showing that YouTube's algorithm -- at least in late 2019 -- appears to be doing the opposite.

The FBI and DOJ like to complain everything is "going dark." It isn't. The only thing that's still dark here is the FBI's FISA powers and the true number of encrypted devices in the FBI's possession.It's the Golden Age of Surveillance. The FBI knows this. The FBI knows this because the federal government as a whole knows this. There is no "going dark." And that's going to hurt the government almost as much as its going to hurt its citizens.A long report by Jenna McLaughlin and Zach Dorfman details the government's worries about the seeming impossibility of maintaining its own darkness. Between state-sponsored attacks on government databases and the omnipresence of surveillance equipment around the world, it's exceedingly difficult to call anything "covert."The OPM hack is only the tip of the exposure iceberg. But what a magnificent tip it is.

The The Professional Microsoft Excel Certification Training Bundle has 8 courses designed to help you become a data crunching pro. You'll learn the basics of designing a spreadsheet, creating charts and graphs, then move on to learning popular functions and automation. One course focuses on PivotTable, which allows you to automatically sort data from one table and present it in another, and another focuses on Microsoft VBA to help you automate tasks and operations that you perform frequently, and more. The bundle is on sale for $39.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.

By all accounts cord cutting continued to set records in 2019, a trend that (despite some baseless claims to the contrary by industry executives) is only expected to accelerate this year. Customers continue to grow tired of paying their local cable TV provider hundreds of dollars per month for giant bundles of channels they don't watch, paired with some of the worst customer service of any industry in the States (a continued, impressive claim given the banking, airline, and insurance industries exist).Despite years of the industry claiming cord cutting was "no big deal" or entirely nonexistent, the numbers from last year couldn't have been any clearer:

We've talked a bunch about how Rep. Devin Nunes' ongoing series of SLAPP lawsuits, nearly all of which are in Virginia, have really served to highlight the nature of libel tourism in the US today, and in particular how plaintiffs and lawyers go hunting for jurisdictions with weak or non-existent anti-SLAPP laws. We already mentioned that Nunes's series of lawsuits has convinced at least some Virginia legislators that it's time to beef up Virginia's anti-SLAPP law, but as the Washington Post recently noted, it's also driving home how the rich and powerful engage in libel tourism by picking venues like Virginia to cause more trouble for those they sue.

2019 has come to a close, and now it's time for our annual round-up of the comments that racked up the most insightful and funny votes in the entire year! As usual we've got the top three in each category — and if you're looking for this week's winners, here's first place and second place for insightful, and first place and second place for funny.The Most Insightful Comments Of 2019Back in April, we wrote about the Music Modernization Act and the problems with legacy industry players handling the royalties for independent songwriters. This garnered our first place winner for insightful in 2019 from Rico R. who shared his personal story as an example of how our copyright systems simply don't serve smaller creators well:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2014/15, we reveled in the tradition of governments dropping news on Christmas Eve in the hopes that nobody will pay attention to it — employed by the NSA in releasing details on its illegal surveillance of Americans and by the French government to enact a controversial surveillance law of its own. Sony was caught infringing in copyright in a stark example of how broken the system is, while we used the notion of a movie about the big Sony hack to explore the unnecessary licensing of news stories. Comcast and Time Warner Cable were doing their darnedest to convince people their merger would be just fine, even though they were in fact the least-liked companies in any industry. And we took another look at how copyright makes culture disappear.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2009/10, Amazon announced that Kindle ebooks outsold physical books for Christmas, but we noted that "sold" isn't exactly the right word for DRM-laden licensed rentals, which change the equation on the value of a Kindle and were already forcing customers to stick with bad products — and the distinction was also becoming important in the music world with questions about licenses stopping at the border. We also looked at how automakers were abusing anti-circumvention laws to force people to pay more for car repairs, and how the UK's Digital Economy Bill was projected to cost more than the highest estimates on the cost of piracy. Zynga was making copyright threats over a script for auto-playing Mafia Wars, and the Viacom/YouTube fight was hit with the embarrassing revelation that Viacom uploaded many of the videos it was suing over.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2004/05, the popular technopanic was blaming wireless technology for everything under the sun — though at least one study was putting to bed the idea that it would interfere with pacemakers. Among the biggest sources of tech excitement was "nanotechnology", which we were beginning to realize was often just a rebranding of existing fields. Meanwhile, Wired took a detailed look at just how big and organized the file-sharing community was, while one anti-piracy group was caught hiding spyware and adware in Windows Media files.

Every year, a few days after New Year's Day, we post some stats about traffic and comments from the previous year (we do it a few days after New Year's to make sure that we actually have complete data for the year -- and also, because it takes a bit of time to go through all the data, and other work needs to be done as well). For reference, you can see our previous such posts: 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 and 2010. We still use Google Analytics for traffic data, mainly because it's the easiest to use, even though it is increasingly not the most accurate, in part because many of our readers (*cough* including me) will often block Google Analytics from recording our traffic. As we've discussed in the past, most "traffic" numbers are complete garbage, a fact that most people like to ignore because it benefits themselves. However, here we are only using the traffic stats for comparative or relative purposes, rather than absolute purposes -- which seems much more reasonable (i.e., we'll note which stories got the most traffic, but not detail how much traffic, since we're positive that number is inaccurate or misleading).Once again, let's start with where people are coming from. The top of this list is basically always almost exactly identical. The vast majority of our traffic is from the US, with 67% (it's always between 67% and 70%). Number two, as always, is the UK, though this year it jumped up to 6.65% from 5.5%, and Canada remains third at 4.41%. India had jumped to 4th place (from 5th) last year, and it remains in 4th place again with 2.8% of our traffic. Australia is still in 5th with 2.2%. The next five are still the same: Finland, Germany, France, Netherlands, and Sweden, though Finland jumped over Germany to go from 7th to 6th. We noted that last year was Finland's first in the top 10, and this year it bumped up another spot. Not sure why we're moderately big in Finland, but it's cool by me.At a continental level, the Americas represent 74% of our traffic (98.5% of that is North America), Europe 17%, Asia 7%, Oceania is 3% and Africa is 1%. Interesting to think about as we consider whether we can even continue to serve European traffic following the various anti-internet laws they've been passing over there. Overall, Google says we had visitors from 237 countries last year, down one from 238 last year, but up one from 236 the year before. Among countries that have become much more censorial, we notice our traffic has dropped precipitously. We used to get a fair amount of traffic from Russia but it's now barely a blip. We get more traffic from Austria and Denmark than Russia nowadays. We get about the equivalent amount of traffic from China as we get from Russia (i.e., not very much). In Asia, most of our traffic comes from India and the Philippines (with some Singapore, South Korea, Japan, and Pakistan as well). Turkey? We get basically the same amount of traffic as we get from Russia and China. It's almost uncanny that we get nearly the identical traffic amounts from each of those countries.Sometimes it's fun to explore the bottom of the list, which tends to be dominated by single visits from random islands in the South Pacific and various countries in Africa -- but not sure it actually tells us very much useful. It's interesting to see a growing number of visits from Cuba, a country whose internet access still remains very, very limited. We're back down to no visits from North Korea, after it sent us 2 visits the previous year.In terms of technology, it's worth noting that Chrome, while still dominant, has dropped in the level of dominance. Last year it represented 49% of all visits to the site (same as the previous year), but this year it's dropped to 45.8%, with Safari jumping up to 21.5% from 17%. Firefox has dropped from 10% to 6%, which makes me sad as a Firefox user. In news that I'm sure is frustrating to Microsoft (and surprising to everyone), we still get 4% of traffic from Internet Explorer and less than 2% from Microsoft Edge. Most of the other browser traffic is various mobile browsers, so we'll breakdown operating system traffic next. 32% of our traffic comes from Windows-based computers, 28% from Android devices and 27% from iOS devices. Only 10% comes from Macintosh computers, which surprises me. 3% of our traffic is from Linux-based machines. Slightly less than 1% comes from Chrome OS. Oh, and 0.03% from Blackberry, 0.02% from "Windows Phone" and 0.01% from Playstation 4. Wow.In terms of service providers, it's a little difficult to tell, because Google Analytics records the same ISP in many different ways (i.e., there's "Comcast Cable Communications LLC" which is listed separately from "Comcast" and "Comcast IP Services" and "Comcast Cable Communications Inc."). I'm sure there's a reason for all those different names, and I'm also assuming it's due to some lame rent seeking activity. So, my rough estimates are that about 10% of our traffic is carried by Comcast, around 7% by Charter, 6% by AT&T and Verizon each, and then lots of other smaller players.Mobile traffic continues to grow by leaps and bounds. We finally (finally, finally, finally) made our site responsive to make mobile browsing better, and so our mobile traffic numbers shot up. Last year it was 39% of our traffic. This year it was 55% of traffic (wow!). Looking purely at mobile traffic, the fight between Android and iOS remains pretty close. 50% of mobile visits are Android and 49% are iOS. The iPhone obviously was the most dominant device, followed by the iPad. When you get into Android devices, we see variations on Samsung phones leading the pack, with the S8, S9, S9+, Galaxy Note 8 and Galaxy Note 9 all making the leader boards. The only two devices that weren't from Apple or Samsung were the Google Pixel 2 XL and the Xiaomi Redmi Note 5A. Going further down the list, we see more variations on the Google Pixels and Samsung devices. Eventually, pretty far down the list we start to see some Motorolas and some OnePluses. Much further down the list there are some LG devices. An Amazon Fire (?!?) and even a fair number of visits from an Essential Phone (?!?!?!?).For the last few years we've highlighted the following chart of where our traffic comes from:As we say every year, unlike nearly every other site out there, we do not focus on gaming social media for traffic, and truly wish to get as much "direct" traffic as possible, because that's how you build loyalty. So it makes me happy to see direct traffic remains our biggest source at over 40% and social is just around 12.5%. This may be naive. Basically every other site seems to focus on getting as much social traffic as possible, and it is, certainly a channel for generating traffic. But it's also fickle and leaves you completely at the whim of whatever recommendation algorithm those companies have designed and I'd rather focus on creating good content than worrying about some third party algorithm I have no control over (same goes for search traffic, for what it's worth).Within social traffic, we get the most from Twitter, followed by Reddit, Facebook, HackerNews, Quora and then YouTube. Google obviously drives most of the search traffic followed by Bing and then DuckDuckGo (which is pretty close behind Bing). As always, many of the top search terms are clearly people using search as a navigation tool, as they just are variations on "techdirt" or "tech dirt." Some of the other top search terms that took people to Techdirt are surprising. There's "baby shark" coming in at the top, and also "UCF professor Richard Quinn." Not sure why people are searching on him, but the top result is our 2010 story on him, and his accusations against his students for cheating (and how he dealt with them). I don't know if he did something new this year that made a bunch of people search for him. Some other top search terms are perhaps less surprising: there are searches for copyright troll "Higbee & Associates" (many of which seem to be from people who received demand letters from Higbee) as well as Backpage and everyone's favorite SLAPP suit filing coal boss, Bob Murray.And now it's time for the lists:Top Ten Stories, by unique pageviews, on Techdirt for 2019:

Take 2 Interactive, the famed game studio behind the Grand Theft Auto franchise, is no stranger to our pages. When we have posted about the company, however, it has typically been to highlight how many ridiculous lawsuits and threats it faces over IP from unlikely sources. There was the ongoing battle with Lindsay Lohan over GTA5. There was a strange cease and desist notice sent to the company by the infamous Pinkerton Agency over its accurate depiction in Red Dead Redemption. The point is that Take 2 has been on the receiving end of frustrating intellectual property challenges such that it really should have some perspective on better ways to handle things than to simply be as heavy-handed as possible.But apparently that's a lesson that hasn't stuck. Take 2 Interactive recently filed a lawsuit against Johnathan Wyckoff and several John Does over what appears to be a now-defunct project entitled Red Dead Redemption: Damned Enhancement Project. The goals of the project were somewhat simple. Fans of the series may already know that the original title was never released for the PC, only the PlayStation. The original game was also released several years ago, with now outdated graphics. Using the more recently released PC version of Red Dead 2, the project aimed to put the game map from the original game into its sequel and then update the graphics from the original game to produce a more polished version of the original. Worth noting here is that the gaming public has complained about the lack of a PC port of Red Dead 1 for years, with Take 2 offering no hint that it had any intention of meeting this demand.And yet they filed suit anyway.

Sonos is taking heat this week for a wasteful "feature" in its "smart" speakers that isn't all that smart.Last October, Sonos announced a new "Trade up" upgrade discount program that let you trade in older Sonos hardware for a 30% discount on new gear. But buried within the program was a bizarre caveat: to get the discount, users need to put their old hardware into "recycle mode," which effectively bricks the product preventing it from being used again. According to Sonos, once you apply online you'll get the discount immediately, but the speaker system you're trading in goes into a 21 day countdown mode before it's inevitably made useless: