Techdirt

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has decided there's too much First Amendment in his state. First, he ignored clarification provided directly to him by the author of the state's new public records law to declare past police misconduct records off limits. Claiming the question of retroactivity was still open, Becerra denied public records requests seeking documents created prior to January 1, 2019.His next potshot at the First Amendment occurred shortly thereafter. Journalists from UC Berkeley received a list of convicted California police officers in response to a records request. The list covered 10 years of convictions and contained 12,000 names. At this point, the journalists have not published the full list. But they have been vetting the list to prep for publication.That's where AG Becerra stepped in. He told the journalists it was illegal for them to possess "confidential information" they obtained lawfully through a public records request. He's wrong, of course. It is not illegal to possess documents received via public records requests even if the government entity has mistakenly sent you the wrong documents.As for the "confidential" claim, any convictions would already be public records, seeing as prosecutions are handled by the state's court system. What the list does is provide one-stop shopping for bad cops, which is what law enforcement agencies are doing when they run applicants against this list.So far, only three officers' names have been published. AG Becerra is trying to ensure those three names are the only ones the public will ever see. If the First Amendment needs to be damaged to protect bad cops, that's a sacrifice he's willing to make.

The late 2017 DOJ announcement that it would be suing to stop AT&T's $86 billion merger with Time Warner turned more than a few heads. While the DOJ insisted that the move was driven entirely by an interest in protecting consumers, the decision was utterly discordant with the Trump administration's often facts-optional assault on consumer protections with bipartisan support, ranging from net neutrality to basic environmental protections. And the DOJ's sudden concern about the impact of media consolidation was in stark contrast to Trump's FCC, where demolishing decades-old media consolidation rules has been a top priority.At the time of the lawsuit, many wondered if some other motivations were really at play. After all, Rupert Murdoch had been pushing Trump for more than a year to scuttle the deal for anti-competitive reasons. Time Warner rejected a News Corp. acquisition offer in 2014, and more recently AT&T rebuffed the company's attempt to buy CNN... twice. Time Warner employees quoted at the time believed Murdoch was the driving motivation for the political pressure to quash the deal:

So we recently wrote about the bizarre situation in the EU whereby the EU Parliament's official Twitter feed had tweeted a pure propaganda video in support of the EU Copyright Directive. This was weird on many levels. First of all, the Copyright Directive has not yet been voted upon, and you would think that the EU Parliament itself should be neutral on the question of whether or not a law should be passed -- especially one with as much controversy as the Copyright Directive. Second, the video was filled with a bunch of blatantly false information (mostly from MEP Axel Voss). It's one thing for the EU Parliament to be promoting a specific outcome on a legislative vote, and it's another altogether to support that with false information delivered by just one MEP. Does the EU Parliament do this on other issues as well? The third oddity, is that the video certainly looked very professionally produced, raising questions of just who put it together.MEP Julia Reda used her position as an MEP to ask those questions of the Parliament and now has the answer. The EU Parliament -- for reasons that are still unclear -- paid Agence France Press (AFP) to produce the video:

In a letter responding to Congressional inquiry, T-Mobile has confirmed that the company dramatically ramped up its patronage of Trump's hotel in DC as it sought regulatory approval of its $26 billion merger with Sprint. A copy of the letter, obtained by the Washington Post, makes it clear that the company spent upwards of $195,000 at the property since it originally announced the telecom industry's latest megadeal last April. That was a dramatic shift from the period of time before the deal was announced:

17 USC 411(a) (part of US Copyright law) states the following:

Twenty years ago, Larry Lessig published the original version of his book Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. A few years later, he put out a very updated version called Code 2.0. Both versions are classics and important pieces of the history of the internet -- and are especially interesting to look at now that issues of how much "code" is substituting as "law" have become central to so many debates. When the original book was published, in 1999, Mike Godwin wrote a review for a long defunct journal called E-Commerce Law Weekly. Given the importance of these issues today, we're republishing a moderately updated version of Godwin's original 1999 review. It's interesting to view this review through the lens of the past 20 years of history that we now have lived through.Imagine that you could somehow assemble the pioneers of the Internet and the first political theorists of cyberspace in a room and poll them as to what beliefs they have in common. Although there would be lots of heated discussion and no unanimity on any single belief, you might find a majority could get behind something like the following four premises:

Leaked documents obtained by an NBC affiliate show the government has taken a direct interest in journalists and activists covering the many, many happenings at our southern border. But the government isn't interested in keeping them safe or giving them the space to do their jobs. Nope, the CBP has been treating journalists like suspected criminals, hauling them in for hours of questioning and examining the contents of their phones and laptops.Oh well. I guess the First Amendment had a good run.

On Wednesday morning, there was a flurry of discussion and articles concerning Mark Zuckerberg's giant new post, laying out a new strategy for Facebook. Having first read some of the commentary -- nearly all of it someone on the spectrum from "critical" to "mocking," I expected the actual post to have lots of problems, or just be pointlessly vague, like too much of Facebook's public communications over the past few years. However, having read through the whole thing, it's actually a lot more thoughtful, nuanced, and detailed than I expected -- and there's a lot that's important in there that we should be encouraging, rather than mocking. There are still some questions raised, but rather than the kneejerk "but Facebook is pure evil" response some like to default to, I thought it might be useful to look more closely at the different aspects of what Zuckerberg is saying, where it might be really good, where it might be problematic, and where more info is necessary.At the very least, rather than simply attacking absolutely everything that Facebook says, there is value in encouraging steps in the right direction.Messaging Integration:A key part of the announcement is one that was first reported by the NY Times back in January: a plan to integrate the messaging features on Facebook's three key platforms: Facebook Messenger, Whatsapp, and Instagram. From Zuck's post:

CrazyTalk Animator Pro is the world's easiest 2D animation software, enabling all levels of users to create professional 2D animations with minimal effort. With CTA3, anyone can instantly bring an image, logo, or prop to life by applying a huge range of motion templates to innovative, creative characters. Built with 2D character templates, valuable motion libraries, a powerful 2D bone rig editor, facial puppets, and audio lip-syncing tools, CTA3 gives users unparalleled control when animating 2D talking characters for videos, web, games, apps, and presentations. It's on sale for $79.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.

FBI Director Chris Wray is still hoping to sell Americans on trading away their security for a little bit of law enforcement convenience. Wray believes the only way the FBI and other agencies will ever keep up with criminals is to do away with encryption. The "going dark" campaign may have started with Jim Comey, but Wray has proven to be every bit as obtusely tenacious as his predecessor.Wray's latest anti-encryption pep talk occurred at the RSA Conference. CNET reports the FBI director delivered another misguided, but impassioned, speech in defense of making everything worse for everyone but the FBI.

This week House and Senate Democrats introduced new legislation that would formally enshrine net neutrality into law. The bill itself is only three pages long because it simply enshrines the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules into federal legislation, providing formal Congressional approval for the FCC's 2015 effort to declare ISPs as common carriers under Title II of the Telecom Act:

Billboard Magazine reliably publishes the views of folks inside the music industry, so a recent column exploring various views regarding Article 13 in the EU Copyright Directive is enlightening. As we've discussed, the record labels released a letter saying that they no longer supported Article 13 because it "no longer meets the objectives" they originally wanted -- which was basically "Google cough up all the money."However, Billboard notes that there's significant disagreement among the three major labels concerning their views on Article 13:

Site-blocking is now officially a thing in many corners of the world, with rightsholders using the court system to restrict access to sites they complain are "pirate" sites. Between that practice and legislation being introduced by many countries in the full throes of regulatory capture, in which moneyed interests convince politicians to protect their own antiquated modes of business over the interests of the every day citizen, the censoring of the internet and the opening of wide avenues of potential abuse are in full swing.But this isn't the case everywhere. In Switzerland, for instance, some specifics in how that country operates have led its courts to do things differently. For one, Switzerland is not a member state of the EU, and so it is not bound by the same rules as most other European nations. In addition to that, Swiss copyright law is such that personal downloading or streaming of content, even if unauthorized, is not illegal. Both of those specifics came to a head when film company Praesens-Film asked the courts to order Swisscom, an ISP, to block what it said are pirate sites. The court refused. Praesens-Film decided to appeal the decision until it eventually reached the Swiss Supreme Court. That court, too, has now refused to order the blocking of pirate sites.

The California legislature handed the public a win by making police misconduct records obtainable through records requests. The transparency very few law enforcement agencies are welcoming is still being litigated, but going forward it seems clear cops will no longer be able to hide their misconduct behind a wall of government-enabled opacity.I guess California legislators believe some sort of transparency equilibrium must be maintained. They've introduced a bill that will make it more difficult for requesters to obtain documents. (via Dave Maass) The bill amends the state's public records law to create another hoop for requesters to jump through before they can get a hold of documents the law says are rightfully theirs.Here's the key amendment:

Lots of people have tried to sum up the differences between Silicon Valley and Washington, D.C. — but it isn't so easy to hone in on. Nevertheless, it's clear that at least some aspects of the west-coast tech approach could benefit a government that all-too-often appears incapable of accomplishing anything much. This week, we're joined by former US Deputy Chief Technology Officer and Code For America founder Jennifer Pahlka to discuss what the Hill can learn from the Valley.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

BlackBerry (under its original name RIM) was always a bit of a patent troll. While it did have some early innovations in the mobile device space, and had popular actual products on the market for a while, it always had a habit of vindictively suing any company that seemed to be offering anything remotely similar to its products. Perhaps the company should have spent more time focused on its actual product rather than suing for patent infringement. Otherwise, its market share chart wouldn't have looked like this, courtesy of Statista:However, now that its business of selling actual products has bottomed out, it's gone back to its earlier focus of suing totally random companies for doing fairly obvious things, and claiming that they violate Blackberry's patents. Last year, we covered its silly lawsuit against Facebook that only got them hit with an equally silly countersuit from Facebook.And now BlackBerry has sued Twitter as well (incredibly, TechCrunch -- and nearly all other publications writing about this -- did not actually post the filing, but you can find it here). The lawsuit is completely silly, and should be embarrassing and shameful for Blackberry and its high priced lawyers (who know better). It claims that it invented "mobile messaging" and that Twitter, as a "latecomer" to the market, has "diverted" people away from Blackberry.

The program considered so "essential" NSA defenders said it couldn't even be slightly modified is apparently no longer in use. During a recent Lawfare podcast, national security advisor Luke Murry dropped a bit of a bombshell. Charlie Savage summarizes Murry's comments:

The Complete Raspberry Pi Hacker Bundle will teach you all you need to know about Raspberry Pi 3 for only $19. You'll learn how to easily prepare an SD card and flash it for any OS and how to work with GPIO pins and learn how to programmatically control them with Python. You'll be building a gaming system to play old Nintendo, Sega, and Playstation games, a personal digital assistant using the Google Assistant API, your own GPS tracking system, and much more.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.

What is it with these Canadian "free speech defenders" suing their critics for their free speech? We've already covered the ridiculous lawsuits by Jordan Peterson and Gavin McInnes against some of their critics, and now we can add a lawsuit by Michele Di Franco, whose Twitter profile notes that he is the "VP Finance" for the "uOttawa Students for Free Speech" club.You would think that, as such, Di Franco would recognize that others' free speech might sometimes reflect negatively on him, and be able to take it. But, nope. In January, Michael Bueckert wrote an article on Medium discussing how Doug Ford's government did not appear to consult many actual students in forming a plan to defund many student organizations at universities. Bueckert's article notes that it appears the only students who were consulted were the University of Ottawa Free Speech club, based on a roundtable it held that Doug Ford attended. Bueckert had some significant concerns about this, noting that (1) a club like that is not representatives of students and (2) Di Franco appeared to regularly associate with various individuals and groups whose focus was often on supporting the right to spew bigotry on campus. Bueckert tweeted out his article a bunch, often referring to the "alt-right" and in one case talking about "free speech assholes who are freely giving these white supremacists a paid platform."Di Franco lawyered up, sending a threatening cease and desist, demanding that Bueckert take down the post, stop referring to Di Franco as anything remotely connected to bigotry or the alt-right, provide a written apology and retraction, and pay $2,000 to the lawyers. Bueckert hired some lawyers of his own to respond. It's a good response:

Social media outlets like Twitter have been rightly criticized for being comically inept when it comes to handling hate, hoaxes, and propaganda. But when conversations bubble up on how best to actually solve these issues, social media tends to get the lion's share of the blame for Americans' aggressive susceptibility to bullshit. In many of these conversations, Americans' susceptibility to bullshit is somehow seen as a new phenomenon, and Twitter and Facebook are exclusively to blame for American heads getting filled with gravel and disinformation.In reality, America's gullibility problem goes much deeper, and it's going to take a lot more than some Facebook wrist slaps to actually address it. Case in point: you've probably seen something about the "Momo challenge" hoax that's everywhere. The short version: the hoax claims there's a viral game making the rounds on services like WhatsApp that involves a demonic-looking chicken lady goading young children into acts of violence or even suicide. In the game, images of said bird lady supposedly press kids harder and harder until they engage in violence like some Japanese horror flick.Except there's nothing to the claims; and the photo being used as the cornerstone of the hoax was just an art gallery piece that first bubbled up back in 2016:

As we've been noting recently, the EU really seems to be bending over backwards to pass poorly thought out laws about the internet (sometimes, though not always, with the best of intentions). For example, the GDPR certainly seems to have good intentions behind it, but in practice it has been a disaster in many specific cases, where it seems obvious that those who crafted the law simply ignored warnings about how it would intersect with real world situations -- especially those regarding free speech. Then, of course, there's the EU Copyright Directive and Article 13, where as far as I can tell, the EU is rushing forward with this effort, knowing that it's awful, because the entire point of the law is to be so awful that internet companies are pressured into grovelling before Hollywood not to sue them for violating a law with which it is literally impossible to be in compliance with.Of course, in a bit of irony, at least one German official is recognizing that the intersection of these two laws may, in fact, cause some significant concerns. Despite what supporters have said about Article 13, it will require that most online platforms use upload filters. While supporters insist the law does not say that, when pressed on this issue, they only note that filters are one way to try to comply, and basically say that tech companies might need to "nerd harder" to come up with alternatives. However, in all practicality, this law is a giant government handout to filter companies. Indeed, as we noted, some of the strongest lobbying in favor of Article 13 came from Audible Magic, which is the recognized leading independent upload filtering company (many, many other companies use its technology, with the one major exception being Google, which built its own filtering tech).TorrentFreak points us to a letter to the EU Parliament from Germany's Data Protection Commissioner (basically, the person in charge of enforcing the GDPR), warning that since there are so few filter companies, and Article 13 will more or less mandate their usage, it will raise significant concerns about all the data those companies (really: Audible Magic) will collect on people and their internet habits. The letter was first translated into English by Florian Mueller, who received an official "approval" from the German Federal Commissioner that his translation was accurate.The letter starts off by brushing away the silly claim that Article 13 won't require filters:

If we were ever to hand out some kind of award for a trademark dispute due to both its insanity and longevity, surely that award would go the US Government's attempt to strip the Mongols, a motorcycle gang, of its trademark. This whole thing actually started way back in 2008, with the government arresting several Mongols members for all manner of crimes ranging from extortion to murder. On top of prosecuting these cases and the gang, it requested it be allowed to seize the Mongols trademark on its logo, reasoning that this would allow them to simply strip any members of any biker gear that displayed the logo, even though that isn't what trademark allows one to do. This somehow continued several years later, when the remaining members of the gang claimed the group collectively owned the trademark in question, meaning that the government couldn't simply take control of it.And, amazingly, this whole thing continues to today. It looked for all the world that this case was finally going to wrap up with the trademark being handed over to the US Government. In a jury verdict, the jury had ordered exactly that to happen. To the suprise of many, however, the judge overseeing the case stepped in and disregarded that part of the judgement, arguing that it would violate the First Amendment.

The journalists at St. Louis Public Radio are the latest to dig into their state's asset forfeiture programs. Despite the state receiving a decent grade from the Institute of Justice for the controls it places on state-level forfeitures, the station found plenty of abuse thanks to the federal loophole, which allows law enforcement to bypass all the built-in protections legislators have enacted.

Given the seemingly endless privacy scandals that now engulf the tech and telecom sectors on a near-daily basis, many consumers have flocked to virtual private networks (VPN) to protect and encrypt their data. One study found that VPN use quadrupled between 2016 and 2018 as consumers rushed to protect data in the wake of scandals, breaches, and hacks that historically, neither industry nor government seem particularly interested in seriously addressing.Usually, consumers are flocking to VPNs under the mistaken belief that such tools are a near-mystical panacea, acting as a sort of bullet-proof shield that protects them from any potential privacy violations on the internet. Not only is that not true (ISPs, for example, have a universe of ways to track you anyway), many VPN providers are even less ethical than privacy-scandal-plagued companies or ISPs they're trying to flee from:

Okay, we've got quite a story today about how copyright is a total mess and not really fit for the way the internet works today. It involves a comedian, Miel Bredouw, a short silly (perhaps NSFW) video she made, the asshole dudebros over at Barstool Sports, Twitter and the DMCA. There are so many details to parse out before we get to the lessons to learn from this, so let's take this one step at a time.More than two years ago, in November of 2016, Bredouw made a 36-second video in which she muses on the fact that the well known (and probably NSFW) song Slob on my Knob by Three 6 Mafia, can be sung to the tune of Carol of the Bells, which (as you probably know) is a classic Christmas carol. The video is embedded here, though (again) I warn you that you might not want to watch it at work:Anyway, that video went fairly viral, as one of many videos on YouTube with, um, unique takes on the Three 6 Mafia song.Fast forward to the end of last year, when Barstool Sports enters the picture. We've written about Barstool Sports twice -- and both times involve them being (1) total assholes and (2) totally ignorant or abusive about intellectual property law. If you're not familiar with Barstool Sports, let's just say that it's the kind of work environment where it wouldn't just be okay to watch a video like the one above while at work, but it would likely be encouraged.Anyway, in December, Barstool Sports took Bredouw's now two-year-old video and reposted it to their own Twitter account, without any credit (and certainly suggesting it was a Barstool Sports production). Bredouw tweeted at them that this was uncool. Yesterday, Bredouw then tweeted out a thread about what happened in the intervening two months, and it is quite a story.After Barstool ignored Bredouw's request for credit, she filed a DMCA notice with Twitter, who took the video down. Once the DMCA takedown occurred, Barstool Sports finally reached out to Bredouw with an apology, asking her to "remove that strike" from their account:

Volker Rieck runs a German anti-piracy operation, and over the last year or so has been an increasingly vocal -- if somewhat unhinged -- supporter of Article 13 and the EU Copyright Directive. I won't link, but a few quick Google searches will find some examples of Rieck trying to build out conspiracy theories of big giant American internet companies secretly running the entirety of the anti-Article 13 push in Europe. You could say that some of them dip into red yarn on a corkboard territory. Of course, as we've discussed before, the idea that any attacks on Article 13 are all really because of Google has been a key part of the pro-Article 13 lobbying strategy from the beginning. Of course, as we've highlighted, if you look at the actual lobbying, it's been almost entirely from legacy copyright organizations, with very little coming from the internet industry. This has created all sorts of conspiracy theories, including the crazy claim by a German MEP that he knew the emails he was getting against Article 13 were really astroturf from Google... because many of the senders had Gmail accounts.Rieck's latest move, however, goes into really nutty territory. In a now deleted story, Rieck claimed to have found something of a smoking gun, proving that Article 13 criticism was really being driven by US corporate interests: in a "study" that he helped "conduct," and resulted in him sending an explosive "warning" letter to Members of the EU Parliament, he claimed to have uncovered that "more tweets (88,000) came from Washington (DC) alone than from the entire EU (71,000)." That would certainly be interesting if it were true.The problem with that claim? It's not even close to true. It is based on Rieck not fully understanding the software they used to do this analysis, called Talkwalker. Luca Hammer initially called into question the use of Talkwalker (while our own Glyn Moody had called out another big problem with the data used in the study months ago). But the biggest issue was this: Talkwalker itself admits that if users haven't turned on location tracking on Twitter, then it just "guesses" their location based on a few factors -- with a fallback being language. And, if there are no other indicators of location, Talkwalker will associate all English tweets with being in Washington DC, i.e., the capital of the largest country where English is the primary language.In other words, what looks like a grand conspiracy of a bot sending tweets about EU copyright policy out of the lobbying den of Washington DC, actually appears to be some pro-copyright maximalists completely misunderstanding the tool they were using to do an analysis. Not a good look.Of course, some of the supporters of Article 13, like IMPALA Music have continued tweeting this "study" despite it being totally debunked, but I guess that's to be expected.In the meantime, as law professor Annemarie Bridy correctly points out, even if this is about legislation for the EU, it's crazy to think that people in the US have no stake in the outcome. First off, EU legislation can reach well beyond the borders of the EU and into the US: witness GDPR and the Right to be Forgotten (remember, in France, they've been arguing that the RTBF, as applied in the EU, must be global in nature). Second, as we've seen for decades, copyright maximalists push ever more crazy copyright policies in one region of the world, and then demand "harmonization" elsewhere, pushing that the same rules be applied in other places. Going to Europe to get a crazy copyright law put in place, and then rushing back to the US to demand matching laws is not a new idea. It's literally how we got the DMCA in the first place.So, no, the criticism of Article 13 is not being driven by some sneaky campaign out of Washington DC, but that also doesn't mean that American voices shouldn't be able to participate in a debate that will undoubtedly impact us and the internet we use.

Size does not make the drone as you will quickly discover with the Nano Prowler Mini Drone. With built-in gyro and 3D flight capability, plus three speed options, you can steadily zip this drone around your flight area confidently. Feel like showing off? Press the Flip Mode button to perform aerial flips and amaze the audience below. It's on sale for $37.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.

It's been really quite incredible to see MEP Axel Voss -- the main EU Parliament cheerleader for Articles 11 and 13 -- making the rounds over the past few weeks to insist that all the complaints about the EU Copyright Directive are wrong. Just last week we saw him make incredibly misleading statements about which platforms were impacted by the law, leaving out that the minor exemption only applied to companies less than three years old. And now, his political group in the Parliament, EPP, has put out an astoundingly misleading interview with Voss, which makes claims that make me wonder if he even knows what's in Article 13.

If you haven't noticed by now, big telecom companies aren't particularly good at wandering outside of their core competencies. They've been government-pampered monopolies so long, innovation, creativity, and competition are concepts that are utterly foreign to their underlying genetics.Nowhere has that been more apparent than big telecom's attempt to pivot to streaming and online advertising. Verizon's first foray into media, you'll recall, was a short-lived "tech news" website called Sugarstring, which was quickly shuttered after the telco banned its reporters from discussing subjects like net neutrality or government surveillance. That was followed by a botched joint venture with RedBox. And Verizon's failed Go90 and Oath efforts, which involved mashing together two failed nineties brands (AOL & Yahoo), then pretending that would be enough to do serious battle in the space.AT&T is now following closely in Verizon's footsteps in the wake of its $86 billion merger with Time Warner (and HBO). The company this week made more than a few headlines when news broke that longtime HBO CEO Richard Plepler, responsible for the lion's share of HBO's success over the last 29 years, would be stepping down. The reason? While most news outlets beat around the bush, it's because he had a hard time getting along with hard-headed AT&T executives:

Despite following this stuff for decades, sometimes even I'm surprised at the levels of intellectual dishonesty coming from those supporting bad copyright policy. The latest is that, despite widespread controversy and criticism over Article 13, some in the EU Parliament thought the appropriate strategy was to speed up the timeline to the vote on the Directive -- specifically holding the vote before a massive EU-wide protest that is planned for March 23. Rather than recognize that millions of people across the EU are so up in arms over the problems in Articles 11 and 13, German Member of the EU Parliament, Manfred Weber, the leader of the powerful European People's Party (EPP) simply proposed voting before the protests could even happen.

My home city of Chicago has built quite a reputation for itself to date. It wouldn't be entirely unfair to suggest that the city's government is run by very silly people who think its citizens are quite stupid, while also managing to build something of a kleptocracy centered around professional corruption. With any such hilariously corrupt institutions, the corruption itself is only half the frustration. The other half is the way the Chicago government thumbs its nose at virtually everyone, so secure is it in its knowledge that its corruption will never result in any serious penalty.An example of this can be found in the way the city government responded to an ACLU FOIA request to disclose the vendor Chicago is using to monitor the social media accounts of its own citizens. If you're thinking that such a program sounds dystopian, welcome to Chicago. If you're thinking there's no way that the city should be able to hide that information from its citizens and that it was obviously disclosed publicly somewhere, welcome to Chicago. And if you thought that a FOIA request must surely be all that it would take to get this information to the public, well, you know the rest.

As Techdirt has reported over the years, the move to open access, whereby anyone can read academic papers for free, is proving a long, hard journey. However, the victories are starting to build up, and here's another one that could have important wider ramifications for open access, especially in the US:

As Techdirt has reported over the years, the move to open access, whereby anyone can read academic papers for free, is proving a long, hard journey. However, the victories are starting to build up, and here's another one that could have important wider ramifications for open access, especially in the US:

Scott Burroughs, one half of the named partners at the law firm Doniger Burroughs, seems to want to build up a reputation as one of the go to voices for pushing the most absurd copyright theories out there. You may recall Doniger Burroughs as the law firm that, representing Playboy, sued BoingBoing for linking to images, making an argument that was so absurd that a court completely tossed it in just about three months (which is crazy fast).Of course, as we noted, Doniger Burroughs after years of copyright trolling clothing designs appeared to be branching out into more traditional copyright trolling. As part of that, Burroughs has been publishing complete and utter nonsense in a regular column over at Above The Law.Recently, he decided to do a bizarre attack on "fair use" in which he conveniently leaves out a few important facts in order to suggest that fair use has gone too far and needs to be pared back. He entitled the series, "The Tyranny of Fair Use" with the first part purporting to explain "How A Once-Humble Copyright Doctrine Tormented A Generation Of Litigants," and the second part unfairly tarnishing the legacy of judge Pierre Leval whose seminal paper, Towards a Fair Use Standard certainly has had tremendous weight on how the courts view fair use. Of course, the reason for that is because it's thoughtful and well-argued, but we'll get to that.The "premise" (if you can call it that) of the first piece is that the concept of fair use today has strayed a great distance from where it began, going all the way back to the Statute of Anne. I'd quote his nonsense, but I get the feeling Burroughs might not think that's fair use. However, to summarize it, Burroughs claims that from nearly the beginning of time until just recently, "fair use" was very, very limited and required a very high bar to meet its standard. The second piece, then lays the blame on the more modern, more expansive view of fair use on Leval's famous paper, which, among other things, promotes the concept of "transformative works" as being a key factor in determining fair use. Burroughs claims that Leval's take on things "contravene[s] over 150 years of jurisprudence."Of course -- perhaps because of his own fear of violating the copyright of Leval's piece -- Burroughs barely quotes from it at all. Perhaps that's because it debunks nearly everything that Burroughs says. Whereas Burroughs insists, repeatedly, that the fair use standards were well settled and clearly applied before Leval came on the scene, Leval's own paper points out that this is not even close to true:

We've noted for years that there's a certain segment of the media and entertainment industry that despises Netflix. Some of this is based on a disdain for Netflix coming to town and throwing oodles of cash around, but a larger chunk is driven by those who simply don't like change but can't admit as much. A good example of that later motivator has been the Cannes film festival, which recently banned Netflix from participating in the awards.When asked to explain why, festival head Thierry Fremaux couldn't really provide a solid answer, but did infer that what Netflix does can't be considered good because it doesn't adhere to traditional and often counterproductive business tactics (like antiquated release windows):

The DOJ is still moving ahead with its plan to attack free speech protections. More than eight years in the making, the attempted prosecution of Julian Assange for publishing leaked documents forges ahead slowly, threatening every journalist in its path.Wikileaks isn't the only entity to publish leaked documents or shield their source. Multiple US press entities have done the same thing over the years. It seems the DOJ feels it's ok to go after Assange and Wikileaks because it's not a US newspaper. But once you set foot on a slope this slippery, it's pretty tough to regain your footing -- especially when the Executive Branch has housed people hellbent on eliminating leakers and whistleblowers for most of the last 20 years.It appears the government wants Chelsea Manning to testify about her relationship with Wikileaks and Julian Assange. The demand Manning received may be deliberately vague, but it's pretty easy to connect the dots, as Charlie Savage does for the New York Times.

The Ultimate Cisco Certification Super Bundle will help you prepare to gain certifications necessary to work with Cisco Networking Systems. The 9 courses cover interconnecting Cisco networking devices, LAN switching technologies, IPv4 and IPv6 routing technologies, WAN technologies, infrastructure services and maintenance, network security, and much more. Each course is designed to help you prepare to take various Cisco certification exams. This bundle is on sale for $49.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.

On Friday, we wrote about the cartoonishly evil decision by producer Scott Rudin, who is producing a big Broadway reboot of To Kill A Mockingbird, written by Aaron Sorkin, to shut down local community theater versions of the earlier play version of the story, written by Christopher Sergel. Apparently, the contract with the Harper Lee estate for a stage adaptation of her book involved some odd clause that said if there was a showing on Broadway of Mockingbird, there couldn't be any stagings near a city. And Rudin then had his lawyers threaten a whole bunch of small community theaters with cease-and-desist notices, claiming they may be on the hook for $150,000 in damages. All for small community theater operations which had paid their $100 license for the rights to perform the old Sergel version of the play.As we noted in that post, rather than say this was about lawyers getting out of hand, Rudin doubled down on the idea, bizarrely making it sound like he had to block the productions:

We've noted time and time again how the US broadband industry's biggest problem is a lack of healthy competition. In countless markets consumers either have the choice of a terrible phone company or a cable giant. The nation's phone companies have spent the last decade refusing to upgrade (or in some cases even repair) their aging DSL lines, because they don't see residential broadband as worth their while. That in turn is giving giants like Comcast and Spectrum an ever greater monopoly in many markets, reducing the already muted incentive to compete on price or shore up historically terrible customer service.It's a weird problem that's widely ignored by both parties, and it just keeps getting worse. This week, US telco Windstream filed for bankruptcy protection, partially thanks to a dispute with one of the company's creditors, netting a $310 million settlement Windstream couldn't swallow. More specifically, hedge fund Aurelius Capital Management had argued that a two-year-old spinoff of the company's fiber-optic cable network violated the covenants on one of its bonds, prohibiting "sale-leaseback transactions." The court agreed.Windstream, for its part, issued a statement insisting that none of this was the company's fault, and that the bankruptcy protection wouldn't impact customers:

The Australian concept of free speech still boggles the mind -- as it appears they're not very big on supporting it. Yesterday we had our story about how journalists were finally able to report on the conviction of Cardinal George Pell, the former Vatican CFO (and often described as the 3rd most powerful person in the Vatican), over some fairly horrific child sexual abuse claims. The conviction had happened back in December, and we were among those who wrote about it at the time, focusing on the ridiculousness of the Australian court's "suppression order," barring any of the reporters who were covering the trial from writing about either the conviction or the existence of the suppression order. The ostensible reason was that there was a second trial still necessary for Pell. However, as I've noted in earlier posts, the US handles this in a much better, and less speech-suppressing manner: by (1) asking potential jurors about their familiarity with the case, and (2) forbidding just the jury pool from further researching the case. It may not be perfect, but the system does work pretty well, and avoids a massive speech suppressing blanket order from a court that would appear to violate any concept of a "free press" in Australia.The situation with the Pell suppression order was even worse, actually, because it impacted many news organizations outside of Australia, out of fear that breaking the suppression order might lead to consequences for local staff in Australia (or even possibly abroad). Some publications in Australia certainly found ways to express their displeasure about the suppression order, such as the Herald Sun, which had the following cover page:However, it impacted other publications as well. Many international news organizations refused to cover the situation at all, and the NY Times took the surprising step of refusing to publish any stories about the case online, but it did run stories in its print edition -- but not in the Australian print edition. This is somewhat frightening if you support freedom of the press.But, now things are even more frightening. Apparently, Australia has started sending "notices" out to journalists who in some way covered either the case or the gag order before it was lifted:

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is That One Guy, who suspected that a particular detail about the theatre that cancelled its production of To Kill A Mockingbird under copyright pressure was hardly arbitrary:

Last week, we took a closer look at the winner of Best Digital Game in our public domain game jam, Gaming Like It's 1923. Today, we continue our winner spotlight series with the game that won Best Remix for its combination of material from multiple sources: Will You Do The Fandango? by Lari Assmuth.Fandango is a tabletop roleplaying game with an overall structure that will be familiar to anyone who's played Dungeons & Dragons or its ilk — but where D&D builds worlds by drawing on material from across the fantasy genre, Fandango uses very different source material: the world of Comedia dell'Arte, starting with the 1923 movie Scaramouche that entered the public domain this year. Instead of grand heroism and the battle between good and evil, Fandango aims to create a story of "swashbuckling romance" and big, bombastic melodrama.In standard fashion, playing requires a Gamemaster and a group of players, each of whom creates a character with an array of stats (Action, Passion and Wit). The setting is revolutionary-era France, the characters are members of a traveling troupe of Comedia dell'Arte players, and the GM leads them on an adventure through towns and cities where civil unrest and class struggle are bubbling up. In each location they will meet notable characters, and get into social conflicts — instead of combat mechanics, the game uses rules and dice for witty repartee and dueling insults. At the end of their time in each location, the players put on a performance, and then deal with the fallout.And one of the most intriguing features? Every character has both a "Personage" (the person they are) and a "Mask" (the role they play in the performances) — and while personage is fixed, masks can be traded throughout the game. Also, they are literal masks:You can download the rules (and printable masks) for the game from its page on Itch, and all you need to get started is a quick read, a couple dice, a pair of scissors, and a few enthusiastic friends. If you get a game going, we'd love to hear how it plays out, and I suspect the creator would too!Next week, we'll be back with another spotlight on one of our winners — and don't forget to check out the full list of entries to spot some of the hidden gems that didn't quite make the final cut. Happy gaming!

What if we allowed some people to patent the law and then demand money from the rest of us just for following it?As anyone with a basic understanding of democratic principles can see, that is a terrible idea. In a democracy, elected representatives write laws that apply to everyone, ideally, based on the public interest. We shouldn't let private parties "own" legal principles or use technical jargon to re-cast those principles as "inventions."But that's exactly what the U.S. Patent Office has allowed two inventors, Nicholas Hall and Steven Eakin, to do. Last September, the government proclaimed that Hall and Eakin are the inventors of "Methods and Systems for User Opt-In to Data Privacy Agreements," U.S. Patent No. 10,075,451.The owner of this patent, a company called "Veripath," is already filing lawsuits against companies that make privacy compliance software. With Congress and many states actively engaged in debates over consumer privacy laws, Veripath might soon be using this patent to extract licensing cash from U.S. companies as well.Privacy-For-Functionality isn't an "Invention," it's a Policy DebateClaim 1 of the '451 patent describes a basic data privacy agreement. An API provides personal information from a software application; then the user is asked for a "required permission" for the use of that information. There's one add-on to the privacy deal: in exchange for the permission, the user gets access to "at least one enhanced function."The next several claims go on to describe minor variations on this theme. Claim 2 specifies that the "enhanced function" won't be available to other users. Claim 3 describes the enhanced function as being fewer advertisements; Claim 4 describes offering the enhanced function in exchange for a monetary payment.To say this "method" is well-known is a major understatement. The idea of exchanging privacy for enhanced functionality or better service is so widespread that it has been codified in law. For example, last year's California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) specifically allows a business to offer "incentives" to a user to collect and sell their data. That includes "financial incentives," or "a different price, rate, level, or quality of goods or services." The fact that state legislators were familiar enough with these concepts to write them into law is a sign of just how ubiquitous and uninventive they are. This is not technology this is policy.(An important aside: EFF strongly opposes pay-for-privacy, and is working to remove it from the CCPA. Pay-for-privacy undermines the law's non-discrimination provisions, and more broadly, creates a world of privacy "haves" and "have-nots." We've long sought this change to the CCPA.)Follow the Law, Infringe this PatentVeripath has already sued two companies that help website owners comply with Europe's General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, saying they infringe its patent. Netherlands-based Faktor was sued [PDF] on Feb. 15, and France-based Didomi was sued [PDF] on Feb. 22Some background: Venpath, Inc., a company with a New York address that appears to be a virtual office, assigned the rights in the '451 patent to VeriPath just days before the patent issued in September last year. As it happens, the FTC began enforcement proceedings against VenPath last September. The FTC's complaint [PDF] alleged that VenPath's website represented that "VenPath participates in and has certified its compliance with the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Framework." The FTC alleged a count of "privacy misrepresentation." It claimed that VenPath "did not complete the steps necessary to renew its participation in the EU-U.S. Privacy Shield framework after that certification expired in October 2017." The FTC issued a Decision and Order [PDF] requiring VenPath to remove the misrepresentations.An exhibit [PDF] attached to the complaint shows that one of the named inventors on the patent, Nick Hall, contacted Faktor to ask what its prices were. Hall identified himself as the CEO of VenPath. Once Faktor responded, Veripath sued Faktor in federal court in New York.In its lawsuits, Veripath claims that basic warnings about cookies on websites, a now-common method of complying with the GDPR, violate its patent. The lawsuit against Faktor notes that Faktor's own website "might not work properly" unless a user consents to having her browser accept cookies.Veripath and its legal team argue that this simple deal—accepting cookie use, in order to visit websites—is enough to infringe the patent. They also claim that Faktor's Privacy Manager software infringes at least Claim 1 of the patent, and facilitates infringement by others.The '451 patent should never have been granted. In our view, its claims are clearly ineligible for patent protection under Alice v. CLS Bank. In Alice, the Supreme Court held that an abstract idea (like privacy-for-functionality) doesn't become eligible for a patent simply because it is implemented using generic technology. Courts have struck down similar claims, like a patent on the idea of conditioning access to content on viewing ads.Even when a patent is invalid, defendants face pressure to settle. Patent litigation is expensive and it can cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get through the early stages. To really protect innovation we have to ensure that patents like the '451 patent are never issued in the first place. The fact that this patent was granted shows the Patent Office is failing to apply the law.We are currently urging the public to tell the Patent Office to stop issuing abstract software patents. You can use our Action Center to submit comments.Republished from the EFF's Stupid Patent of the Month series.

With rates of copyright infringement fluctuating year by year, and country by country, the end result is a debate that goes on as how to best keep rates trending downward. One side of this argument urges a never ending ratcheting up of enforcement efforts, with penalties and repercussions for infringement becoming more and more severe. The other side of the argument suggests that when content is made available in a way that is both convenient and reasonably priced, piracy rates will drop. A decent number of studies have been done that show the latter is the actual answer in this argument, including a study done last summer, which showed innovative business models fare far better than enforcement efforts.Yet it seems it's going to take a compounding series of these studies to get the point across, so it's worth highlighting yet another study that has come out of New Zealand that concludes that piracy rates are a function of pricing and ease of access to content.

The Seventh Circuit Appeals Court has issued a dubious ruling [PDF] on cell tower dumps -- one that appears to ignore the Supreme Court's decision declaring warrants are needed to obtain cell site location info. The criminal conduct leading to this questionable finding clearly shows robbing cellphone stores is a particularly bad idea. (h/t Orin Kerr)

Just about a year ago we noted how Facebook was taking some heat on the security and privacy fronts for pitching a "privacy protecting" VPN to consumers that actually violated consumer privacy. Based on the Onavo platform acquired by Facebook back in 2013, the company's "Onavo Protect – VPN Security" app informed users that the product would "keep you and your data safe when you browse and share information on the web" and that the "app helps keep your details secure when you login to websites or enter personal information such as bank accounts and credit card numbers."It didn't take long before many began to notice those claims weren't, well, true.A wide variety of different news outlets were quick to point out that Facebook was actually using the "privacy" app to track users around the internet when they wandered away from Facebook, then using that data to its own competitive advantage:

If you wanted to think of a children's story style "evil" character who must be stopped, you can't get much better than the evil rich out of towner going around the country trying to kill off local community theater productions of a beloved play, so that he can stage a massive Broadway reboot. So, step on up, Hollywood producer Scott Rudin, to the role of evil villain. Rudin is producing a new Broadway adaptation of Harper Lee's classic To Kill A Mockingbird. Of course, there already is a play based on the book, written by Christopher Sergel, that is widely performed around the country. Rudin, however, is producing a totally new version, written by famed Hollywood writer Aaron Sorkin.Now, a normal, thinking, kind person would immediately recognize that local community theater productions can easily co-exist with this giant Broadway production with all the big Hollywood names behind it. But, that's apparently not Scott Rudin. Rudin's lawyers claim that part of the contract between the company that holds the rights to the earlier play -- a company called Dramatic Publishing Company -- if there is any version of Mockingbird on Broadway, there cannot be any other Mockingbird performances within 25 miles of any city that had a population of 150,000 or more in 1960. First off: what a weird contract. Second: this still seems like something any person with the slightest bit of emotional empathy would ignore in putting on the new Broadway show. But not Scott Rudin:

The Complete UI and UX Design Master Class Bundle contains 8 courses to help you learn how to design easy to use websites and mobiles apps. You will learn the basic tools of Photoshop specific to UI Design, the essential principles and concepts behind creating a simple and intuitive user experience, how to improve your designs with Modular Grid and Baseline Grid, and much more. Other courses cover Typography, freelancing, app button design, and a variety of Adobe tools. 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.

You may have heard the story recently of how the band REM got a video in a tweet taken down after Donald Trump had retweeted the video. CNBC has the details:

We'll apparently have to keep making this point until it sinks in.For years now, streaming video providers like HBO and Netflix have taken a relatively-lax approach to password sharing. Netflix CEO Reed Hastings has gone so far as to say he "loves" password sharing, and sees it as little more than free advertising. Execs at HBO have similarly viewed password sharing in such a fashion, saying it doesn't hurt their business. If anything, it results in folks signing up for their own accounts after they get hooked on your product, something you'll often see with kids who leave home, or leave college and college friends behind.In other words, the actual streaming providers consistently say they see password sharing as a form of marketing. And most of these services have built in limits on the number of simultaneous streams per account that can operate at any one time, deflating much of the utility for heavy users looking to piggyback on others' accounts. That caps the phenomenon from operating at any scale that could prove truly harmful (say by 20 users sharing one Netflix account).That doesn't stop folks from conflating password sharing with "piracy." You'll see older cable executives occasionally whine about this subject, not understanding how any of this works. You'll also see stories like this one pop up every so often, insisting these companies are losing "X" millions because they're not cracking down harder on password streams: