Techdirt

The big topic du jour, of course, has been about content moderation on social media. But that may only be just the very beginning of where all of this heads. It didn't get that much attention, but last week Microsoft threatened to take down all of Gab.ai based on some (really awful) posts on that site. Gab, if you don't know, is the social network "alternative" that claims to be free speech supporting (even if that's a bit of an exaggeration), when it really has basically become the home to all the assholes who have been kicked off of Twitter. It's generally a cesspool of idiocy, so it's not clear what suddenly inspired Microsoft -- which hosts Gab on its Azure cloud platform -- to suddenly speak up.As we've noted many times in the past, Microsoft, like any company, has certain rights, including First Amendment rights for what speech lives on its own computers and who it associates with. But, we're talking about a different kind of ballgame when we start getting to the infrastructure level, rather than just talking about content moderation at the edge provider level. This hearkens back to the big post I did nearly a year ago when Cloudflare stopped providing service to the Daily Stormer. As I noted at the time, there were no easy answers, and the situation is incredibly complicated. Simply kicking bad services off the internet doesn't make their hatred/ignorance/stupidity go away (and sometimes allows it to fester in even darker corners, where it can't be monitored or countered).But there's an even larger issue here when its these infrastructure players making determinations on content at various edge providers -- effectively having their own terms of service substitute for the edge providers'. We discussed some of this on a recent podcast, focusing on how the legacy copyright players have been targeting infrastructure players -- CDNs, payment processors, advertising networks, domain registrars and registers, and even ICANN itself. While, again, these providers, as private companies, have every right to make their own decisions, they have much greater power than edge providers, and the tools they have are much blunter. Whereas Twitter can just take down a single Tweet, Microsoft's only remedy for bad content on Gab is to take down all of Gab.This is a big issue that deserves a lot more thoughtful discussion, so it's great that Glenn Fleishman over at Fortune has started to question how infrastructure providers are dealing with these questions (for the most part, they're trying to avoid answering these questions). I'm briefly quoted in the article, from a much longer conversation that Glenn and I had where we tried to work through a variety of different ideas.And, as I wrote in last year's post about the Cloudflare situation, I'm a lot more worried about infrastructure players suddenly deciding that they should have an editorial say as well, as that seems well beyond what role they should be playing. Yes, again, they have every right to stop working with services they dislike, but we should be discussing the potential impact of infrastructure players as censors. With edge services, one point that is regularly brought up is that if you don't like how a service is running you can just go to another one or build your own. But that gets a lot more complicated when you get to the infrastructure level where you can't just "build your own" and the number of options may be greatly limited.As Glenn notes in his piece:

By now we've well established that the FCC ignored the public, ignored the experts, and ignored all objective data when it killed net neutrality rules at the behest of telecom monopolies.While the vote to kill the rules occurred last year, the rules didn't technically die until last June 11. And one common refrain by Pai and pals (and many folks who don't understand how the broken telecom market works) is that because the internet didn't immediately collapse upon itself post-repeal in a rainbow-colored explosion, that the repeal itself must not be that big of a deal. For example, Ajit Pai tried to make that point again last week at an FCC oversight hearing that was severely lacking in the actual oversight department.In his opening statement, Pai proclaimed (pdf) that the internet still working semi-reasonably is proof positive that the threat of the repeal was over-hyped:

Reuters has a long, detailed examination of the Chinese surveillance state. China's intrusion into the lives of its citizens has never been minimal, but advances in technology have allowed the government to keep tabs on pretty much every aspect of citizens' lives.Facial recognition has been deployed at scale and it's not limited to finding criminals. It's used to identify regular citizens as they go about their daily lives. This is paired with license plate readers and a wealth of information gathered from online activity to provide the government dozens of data points for every citizen that wanders into the path of its cameras. Other biometric information is gathered and analyzed to help the security and law enforcement agencies better pin down exactly who it is they're looking at.

It is no revelation that film studios have been in a sustained freakout for years over films that leak to the internet before they hit the theaters. While the freakout is somewhat understandable (nobody wants to plan out a film release only to have the product appear in a way outside those well-laid plans), much of the reasoning in the freakouts has to do with claims that the leaks eat into the profits the company would generate at the theater. This reasoning has been debunked many times over, most notably by AAA movies that leak online still making a killing at the box office. What should be immediately apparent is that much of this is driven by emotion and outrage rather than anything resembling facts or clear-thinking.Which brings us to Our House Films, the company that produced Jean-Claude Van Damme's latest opus, Kickboxer: Retaliation. If you weren't aware that Van Damme had actually made another Kickboxer movie in the first place, you're in good company: the film grossed five-thousand whole dollars domestically. If you are aware that this film was made, perhaps you also are aware that it leaked early online. Our House Films blames its post-production partner, Tunnel Inc., for the leak and has filed a copyright lawsuit against Tunnel...for $5 million.

The promise of transparency and accountability police body cameras represent hasn't materialized. Far too often, camera footage goes missing or is withheld from the public for extended periods of time.So far, body cameras have proven most useful to prosecutors. With captured footage being evidence in criminal cases, it's imperative that footage is as secure as any other form of evidence. Unfortunately, security appears to be the last thing on body cam manufacturers' minds.

Have you ever thought about the legal issues surrounding emoji? Don't worry, most people haven't. But they are myriad and interesting, with roots nearly two decades ago following the emergence of emoticons — and two people who definitely have thought a lot about it are Eric Goldman and Gabriella Ziccarelli, who join us on this week's episode to talk about the various intersections of emoji and the law.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.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to extend qualified immunity to a former ICE attorney who forged a document submitted into evidence in a deportation hearing. (h/t Mark Stern) While still with ICE, Jonathan M. Love produced a document claiming Ignacio Lanuza had agreed to voluntary departure to Mexico, thus undermining the ten years of residency needed to avail himself of a removal order cancellation. Here's what was submitted and its effect, from the appeals court decision [PDF]:

You may have noticed that an awful lot of news broke yesterday concerning a wide variety of legal cases all touching on the President. Most of the coverage, of course, went to the two big cases: the guilty verdict against former campaign chair Paul Manafort and the guilty plea by former Trump personal lawyer Michael Cohen. There were some other cases with breaking news as well, including a judge in New York rejecting Trump's attempt to dump a lawsuit filed against his private security team for apparently beating up some protesters. Also, in a (frankly, very weak) defamation lawsuit filed by former Apprentice contestant Summer Zervos, apparently Trump has refused to submit to discovery requests, leading Zervos' legal team to file a motion to compel him to respond.Most of those cases don't cover the kinds of things we usually talk about (the defamation case being the exception -- but at this stage, there really isn't that much worth commenting on). However, there was yet another case loosely involving the President that is something we'd talk about and which concluded late Monday (though, the news broke on Tuesday as well). And that involved a defamation case filed by three Russians against Christopher Steele, author of the so-called "Steele Dossier." Back in October of last year, three Russians, Mikhail Fridman, German Khan and Peter Aven, who are all involved with Alfa-Bank, sued Fusion GPS and its founder Glenn Simpson in federal court for defamation. That case is still waiting for a ruling on both a Motion to Dismiss and an Anti-SLAPP Motion.However, while all of that was going on, the same three Russians filed a very similar case in the DC Superior Court (the equivalent of a state court, rather than federal court). That case was filed in April of this year, and while the federal court is still dilly dallying around on it, the state court dismissed the case on anti-SLAPP grounds (which rendered a related Motion to Dismiss moot.).As we've discussed in the past, unfortunately, DC federal courts have decided that DC's (decent) anti-SLAPP statute does not apply in federal court (which suggests the anti-SLAPP motion in the federal case may fail, even if the Motion to Dismiss may succeed), but it has always applied in DC's local courts. And here, the judge, Anthony Epstein, applied it in a pretty straightforward manner to decide that the Russians have no case. Like most anti-SLAPP laws, which are designed to stop bogus defamation lawsuits quickly, DC's shifts the burden to the plaintiffs early on, requiring them to establish a likelihood of success in their claims in order for the case to move forward.For that to happen, the Russians needed to show evidence that Steele's statements about them in the dossier were false, damaging and done with actual malice (which means Steele would have had to known they were false, or done so with reckless disregard for the truth). This is a pretty high bar. Rather than just do so, the Russians tried a different strategy, which tried to attack the applicability of the anti-SLAPP law in the first place:

Getting an app or website up and running is challenging enough, but making that same project easy to use is even trickier. Made with the beginner in mind, UX Design For Beginners takes you through the essential principles and concepts behind creating a simple and intuitive user experience (UX). Make your way through this UX primer, and you'll discover the common issues UX designers face and how you can avoid them when building your own projects. It's on sale for $10.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.

For the past few years we've been covering a whole series of cases, most of them filed by (I'm not making this up) a silly law firm by the name of 1-800-Law-Firm, trying to argue that various big internet companies provided material support to ISIS or other terrorists, and therefore owe tons of money to surviving relatives of people killed by ISIS or other terrorist organizations. There have been lawsuits against Twitter, Facebook and Google/YouTube. So far, all of these lawsuits have failed miserably -- as they should.Even if the plaintiffs could show that these platforms actively enabled terrorists to use their platform (which they do not, as all of them proactively look to remove terrorist related content), none of the cases makes an even half-hearted attempt to connect the (very unfortunate) deaths of their relatives to any actual content on these platforms. The lawsuits are basically "these bad people use Twitter/Facebook/YouTube, these people killed my relative, thus, those platforms owe me millions of dollars." That, of course, is not how the law works.In the case filed against Google, it was filed by a relative of someone who was killed in the horrific Paris attacks a few years back. The court had already thrown out the case last year, but allowed a third amended complaint to be filed, which has now been rejected as well (hat tip to Eric Goldman for blogging about this as well).As with every other such case, the court relied on CDA 230 in throwing it out last year, but the lawyers tried again with an amended complaint, and have failed again. The new complaint made the same four claims the earlier filing did, and added two more, insisting that CDA 230 does not apply to any of them. Once again, the court says the old claims are easily barred under CDA 230:

We've long discussed how Verizon (like most U.S. cellular carriers) has a terribly-difficult time understanding what the word "unlimited" means. Way back in 2007 Verizon was forced to settle with the New York Attorney General after a nine-month investigation found the company was throttling its "unlimited" mobile data plans after just 5GB of data usage, without those limits being clearly explained to the end user. Of course Verizon tried for a while to eliminate unlimited data plans completely, but a little something called competition finally forced the company to bring the idea back from the dead a few years ago.But the company's new "unlimited" data plans still suffer from all manner of fine print, limits, and caveats. That includes throttling all video by default (something you can avoid if you're willing to pay significantly more), restrictions on tethering and usage of your phone as a hotspot or modem, and a 25 GB cap that results in said "unlimited" plans suddenly being throttled back to last-generation speeds as slow as 128 kbps. In short, Verizon still pretty clearly has no damn idea what the word unlimited actually means, nor does it much care if this entire mess confuses you.The latest case in point: one fire department in Santa Clara County, California had subscribed to what it thought was an unlimited Verizon wireless data plan for its mobile command and control center (OES 5262) vehicle. The vehicle is used to manage department resources during wildfires and other emergencies. But a brief (pdf) filed this week by net neutrality supporters pushing for restoration of net neutrality rules (first spotted by Ars Technica) highlights how the fire department suddenly found the vehicle (and all connected systems) largely unusable because Verizon had throttled its cellular data connection after 25 GB of usage:

Turkey's president Recep Erdogan is the pettiest of tyrants, ruling with an iron fist and an easily-bruised ego. In addition to snuffing out dissent in his own country with a combination of arrests and intimidation, Erdogan and his government scour the planet for non-Turkish citizens who have offended Lord Gollum.This doesn't just take the form of content removal requests and site blocking. It also means actual arrests of foreign citizens residing in other countries. Germany's government was shocked to find an old law on its books -- one that forbade insulting foreign states -- being used against one of its own, a German comedian who wrote an immensely unflattering poem about the Turkish dictator. The government gave in at first before swiftly excising the law.The same can't be said about the Netherlands, another country with bad laws Erdogan is more than happy to exploit to silence criticism. This makes things a little easier for the Turkish government. The last time it punished a Dutch citizen for criticizing the Turkish president, it had to wait for the journalist to visit the country before arresting her.This time the Dutch government is going to be doing the punishing. Erdogan has spoken and, rather than being greeted with laughter followed by a dial tone, the Dutch government appears to be moving forward with a local prosecution.

Trademark disputes in the alcohol industries are often times absurd enough to make the comments section question whether everyone involved was simply drunk. While I'm sure the lawyers on all sides tend to be sober, every once in a while you read a claim in a big-boy legal document that makes you pause and wonder. And, then, sometimes the dispute centers around a public figure punning off his own notoriety, making the trademark claims extra ludicrous.Meet Bob Dylan. Bob used to be a counterculture folksinger hero that eschewed the trappings of materialism and sang as one of the original social justice warriors. Present day Bob sings songs on car commercials and owns a Whiskey brand. And, hey, Bob's allowed to make money, no matter how jarring this might be to those born decades ago. His Heaven's Door Whiskey is, sigh, allowed to exist. It's also allowed to fight back against the absurd trademark lawsuit brought by Heaven's Hill Distillery over its logo and trade dress.

For quite some time now, we've been trying to demonstrate just how impossible it is to expect internet platforms to do a consistent or error-free job of moderating content. Especially at the scale they're at, it's an impossible request, not least because so much of what goes into content moderation decisions is entirely subjective about what's good and what's bad, and not everyone agrees on that. It's why I've been advocating for moving controls out to the end users, rather than expecting platforms to be the final arbiters. It's also part of the reason why we ran that content moderation game at a conference a few months ago, in which no one could fully agree on what to do about the content examples we presented (for every single one there were at least some people who argued for keeping the content up or taking it down).On Twitter, I recently joked that anyone with opinions on content moderation should first have to read Professor Kate Klonick's recent Harvard Law Review paper on The New Governors: The People, Rules and Processes Governing Online Speech, as it's one of the most thorough and comprehensive explanations of the realities and history of content moderation. But, if reading a 73 page law review article isn't your cup of tea, my next recommendation is to spend an hour listening to the new Radiolab podcast, entitled Post No Evil.I think it provides the best representation of just how impossible it is to moderate this kind of content at scale. It discusses the history of content moderation, but also deftly shows how impossible it is to do it at scale with any sort of consistency without creating new problems. I won't ruin it for you entirely, but it does a brilliant job highlighting how as the scale increases, the only reasonable way to deal with things is to create a set of rules that everyone can follow. And then you suddenly realize that the rules don't work. You have thousands of people who need to follow those rules, and they each have a few seconds to decide before moving on. And as such, there's not only no time for understanding context, but there's little time to recognize that (1) content has a funny way of not falling within the rules nicely and (2) no matter what you do, you'll end up with horrible results (one of the examples in the podcast is one we talked about last year, explaining the ridiculous results, but logical reasons, for why Facebook had a rule that you couldn't say mean things about white men, but could about black boys).The most telling part of the podcast is the comparison between two situations, in which the content moderation team at Facebook struggled over what to do. One was a photo that went viral during the Boston Marathon bombings a few years ago, showing some of the carnage created by the bombs. In the Facebook rulebook was a rule against "gore" that basically said you couldn't show a person's "insides on the outside." And yet, these photos did that. The moderation team said that they should take it down to follow the rules (even though there was vigorous debate). But, they were overruled by execs who said "that's newsworthy."But this was then contrasted with another viral video in Mexico of a woman being beheaded. Many people in Mexico wanted it shown, in order to document and alert the world of the brutality and violence that was happening there, which the government and media were mostly hiding. But... immediately people around the world freaked out about the possibility that "children" might accidentally come across such a video and be scarred for life. The Facebook content moderation team said leave it up, because it's newsworthy... and the press crushed Facebook for being so callous in pushing gore and violence... so top execs stepped in again to say that video could no longer be shown.As the podcast does a nice job showing, these are basically impossible situations, in part because there are all different reasons why some people may want to see some content, and others should not see it. And we already have enough trouble understanding the context of the content, let alone the context of the viewer in relation to the content.I've been seeing a microcosm of this myself in the last few days. After my last post about platforms and content moderation around the Alex Jones question, Twitter's Jack Dorsey was kind enough to tweet about it (even though I questioned his response to the whole mess). And, so for the past week or so I've been getting notified of every response to that tweet, which seems pretty equally divided between people who hate Alex Jones screaming about how Jack is an idiot for not banning Jones and how he's enabling hate mongers, and people who love Alex Jones screaming about how Jack is silencing dissent and how he's a liberal asshole silencing conservatives.And no matter where on the spectrum of responses you may fall (or even totally outside of that spectrum), it should come down to this: we shouldn't be leaving these decisions up to Jack. Or Mark. Yes, those companies can and must do a better job, but what people fail to realize is that the job we're asking them to do is literally an impossible one. And that's why we really should be looking to move away from the situation in which they even need to be doing it. My solution is to move the controls outwards to the ends, allowing individuals and third parties to make their own calls. But there may be other solutions as well.But something that is not a solution is merely expecting that these platforms can magically "get it right."

As expected, Mozilla, 22 State attorneys general, INCOMPAS, and numerous consumer groups this week asked a U.S. appeals court to reinstate FCC net neutrality rules. The state AGs, led by New York Attorney General Barbara Underwood, filed a lawsuit back in January attempting to overturn the repeal, arguing that the decision will ultimately be a "disaster for New York consumers and businesses." Mozilla and a few other companies also filed suit, as well as consumer groups including Free Press and Public Knowledge.The AG's statement-- as well as the brief (pdf) filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit late Monday night--not only urges the court to restore the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules, but asks the court to scuttle ISP and FCC efforts to block states from protecting consumers:

Last week, Tim Cushing had a post about yet another out of control automated DMCA notifier, sending a ton of bogus notices to Google (most of which Google removed from its search engine index, since the sender, "Topple Track" from Symphonic Distribution was a part of Google's "Trusted Copyright Program," giving those notices more weight). The post listed many of the perfectly legitimate content that got removed from Google's index because of that rogue automated filter, including an EFF page about a lawsuit, the official (authorized) pages of Beyonce and Bruno Mars, and a blog post about a lawsuit by Professor Eric Goldman.But, seeing as we're getting towards September when the EU Parliament will again be voting on the big Copyright Directive proposal there, including Article 13, which will require mandatory filters or other automated tools for preventing copyright infringement, I thought it was important to do a separate post calling out one of the other pages taken down by Symphonic Distribution's out of control Topple Track. And that was that it got Google to de-index an article by Julia Reda, a member of the EU Parliament who has been leading the charge against the problematic provisions in the Copyright Directive proposal.Specifically -- and it would be hard to make this up if we tried -- Topple Track's automated filter got Google to de-index this blog post by Reda, in which she details the problems in Article 13 and how it will create mandatory censorship machines, that would likely lead to massive internet censorship of perfectly legitimate content.Let's repeat that so it can sink in. An automated filter helped take down an article by a Member of the EU Parliament, explaining how a (still being debated) proposal would create automated filtering systems that would take down all sorts of legitimate content.This feels like the sort of thing that should end all debate about just how damaging Article 13 might be (though, of course, it won't). When you force more mandatory filters onto the internet, these kinds of problems will only increase. Tons and tons of legitimate and perfectly legal content will get blocked. Last month, we posted a useful demonstration of just how much legitimate content would get censored under such a plan, but we never imagined that a perfect example would present itself just weeks later showing just how bad an idea Article 13 is.

The US government isn't supposed to seek general warrants. And US judges aren't supposed to approve them. The Fourth Amendment requires a showing of probable cause to justify the intrusion by the government into citizens' lives and property. None of that appears to have happened in this case, brought to us by Thomas Fox-Brewster at Forbes.

Clogged drain? Engine trouble? It helps to be able to see just where the problem is, which is where this handy Waterproof WiFi Wireless Endoscopic Camera comes in. With an 8-way adjustable LED, this 1080p HD camera can slip into the tight or dark spaces where fingers or eyes can't and send a feed right back to any device you're using via WiFi. It's important to diagnose a problem at the source. This camera will help you get there for only $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.

Back in 2010, we posted an infographic from The Root showing just how little money that was spent on music actually went to the artist:In 2015, using a report put out by Ernst & Young, we put together our own graphics showing how much of streaming went to the actual artists:You may be noticing a pattern? Very little of the money being made actually goes to the artist. Now we have even more data on this. Citibank recently released a massive and incredibly thorough report on the entire music industry showing how and where the money is made. There's lots of interesting and useful information in the report, but the headline grabbing fact is that musicians end up with just about 12% of global music revenue. As I said, the report is incredibly thorough (and a really useful read if you want to get a sense of just how convoluted and complex the music business really is), but the key is that there was ~$43 billion spent on music in 2017. Approximately $25 billion of that went to everyone (outside of the labels) who helped make the music available: digital streaming services, retail stores, concert venues:That leaves $18.2 billion in money distributed out to the labels. But of that amount, only about $5 billion actually goes to artists, which means right around 12% goes to artists:Of course, it's especially notable that a significant chunk of that revenue going to artists actually comes from... live performances:This shouldn't be a surprise. Hell, we've spent the better part of two decades here talking about how artists need to embrace "scarcities" where they can make money, with live shows being a big part of that. And we kept having people from the recording industry scream about us saying that, but the numbers above don't lie. Citibank notes that one of the big reasons live drives so much artist revenue: You don't have the same amount of monopolistic middlemen sucking the artists dry:

Last week we noted how an FCC "oversight" hearing fell well short of anything actually resembling, well, actual oversight. Three FCC staffers had just been caught making up a DDOS attack and misleading Congress, the press and the FBI about it -- yet the subject was was barely even broached by lawmakers on either side of the aisle. It was another embarrassing example of the absence of anything resembling genuine accountability at the agency.Fortunately one subject that did get a little attention was the FCC's comically-terrible broadband maps, something we've covered at great lengths here at Techdirt. If you want to see our terrible broadband maps at work, you need only go visit the FCC's $300+ million broadband availability map, which is based on the Form 477 data collected from ISPs. If you plug in your address, you'll find that not only does the FCC not include prices (at industry behest), the map hallucinates speed and ISP availability at most U.S. addresses.For example, at my home in Seattle there's only one real ISP available: Comcast. But according to the FCC's data, I supposedly have seven broadband providers to choose from:Three of those options (CenturyLink DSL, CenturyLink fiber, and Startouch Broadband) don't actually exist at my address, something I've confirmed with company engineers. Another three are satellite broadband providers, whose sky-high latency, high prices and daily or monthly usage caps make the services barely qualify as real broadband. That again leaves just Comcast as my only fixed line broadband option (aka a monopoly) in Seattle, supposedly one of the bigger tech-oriented cities in America. If you plug your address into the FCC's map you'll likely see similarly-misleading results.As the FCC eyes where to deploy $4.5 billion in new rural broadband subsidies, more and more lawmakers are growing annoyed at the FCC's failure on this front. That includes Senator Jon Tester, who at last week's hearing proclaimed that the FCC's broadband maps "stink", and figuratively suggested that somebody (¯\_(ツ)_/¯) should have their "ass kicked" for the failure:

Governments -- which will process requests from citizens in statutorily-required time almost zero percent of the time -- never think the private sector moves fast enough. The government says "Jump" and then immediately asks why the jumping wasn't already in progress when it ordered the jumping to commence.Content that isn't even of the "I know it when I see it" variety isn't being taken down quickly enough for the EU. Various members have implemented their own 24-hour policies for the removal of everything from "hate speech" to "extremist content" -- both particularly difficult to classify immediately when context and newsworthiness must be considered.The EU Commission is reeling in the leash it has attached to US social media companies. It pitched the idea back in March but now appears to following through with its threats. The latest move towards impossibility is detailed by The Financial Times.

We've often made the point in the past that much of the trademark legal strife and bullying that occurs throughout the country ought to be squarely blamed on a USPTO that can't be bothered to put much thought into the trademarks it approves. All too often, the Trademark Office acts as a mindless rubber stamping facility, pushing through the application paperwork without thinking about the broader consequences of its approvals, nor the legal minutia involved into what makes a term a valid trademark. That bureaucratic lethargy is precisely how you get trademark bullies wielding trademarks that should never have been granted. And, because trademark bullying generally works, it's rare that anyone outside the USPTO is actually forced to clean up this mess it created.But, on rare occasions, sanity puts a win up on the board. Such is the case with Express Homebuyers USA of Virginia, which defeated WBH Marketing Inc.'s trademark suit in which the latter claimed infringement based on its registered trademark for the phrase "We Buy Houses."

Turkish president Recep Erdogan figures the best critic is a silenced critic. Determined to "earn" the respect of people worldwide, Erdogan and his government have engaged in unprecedented censorship. This goes far beyond the punishment of its own citizens. Erdogan has tried to secure charges and prosecutions from other governments against their own citizens for having the temerity to not take him as seriously as he takes himself.Erdogan takes down newspapers and platforms with equal aplomb. He does this to stop things like the following from circulating:It doesn't work, of course. Nothing gets censored worldwide and whatever censorship hits home can be circumvented. But of all the internet targets, Twitter is Erdogan's absolute favorite. The Committee to Protect Journalists has done the math. Its excellent article on Erdogan's censorship activities makes it clear that all other countries are merely pretenders to the throne when it comes to talking Twitter into doing their dirty work.Over 1.5 million tweets have been withheld in Turkey by Twitter, thanks to Turkish government demands. Frequently targeted by removal requests are citizens who would normally be afforded extra speech protections in countries not run by a thin-skinned thug. And an American company playing ball with an authoritarian doesn't leave much room for recourse.

Recently, Attorney General Jeff Sessions attended the Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference. Considering he was speaking to members of the judiciary, it seems odd he would have used this occasion to deliver a rant against the judicial system.As a prosecutor, Sessions greatly benefited from the system he now maligns. The justice system barely enters the lives of those being prosecuted. An adversarial system designed to provide the accused with due process is rarely engaged. The outcome is predetermined, except for arguments over minor details. As the Supreme Court wrote in a 2012 decision, the criminal justice system is a downhill slope for prosecutors who rarely need more than a light shove to put someone behind bars.

Phew. After a surprising (and very, very weird) ruling in a California state court earlier this summer, that suggested that a well known racist might have a legitimate legal case against Twitter for kicking him off their platform, an appeals court has quickly and thoroughly corrected that error. To understand what happened here requires a little bit of background, so let's dig in.Back in March, we wrote about a silly case filed by noted racist (he prefers "race realist" or "white advocate" but come on), Jared Taylor, who had been kicked off Twitter. Taylor sued, claiming that Twitter kicking him off the platform violated various rights. As we noted at the time, the case had no chance, and would be tossed out on CDA 230 grounds, as the law makes it clear that platforms cannot be liable for their moderation choices. Indeed, the whole reason CDA 230 was first created was in response to a horrible court ruling that said moderation choices could make you liable. CDA 230 was a correction to that mistaken court. And in the two decades since then we've seen all sorts of attempts by people to argue their way around CDA 230 and nearly all of them fail, and thus we expected this one to fail easily. As I noted in that original post, I had spent some time going back and forth with some of Taylor's lawyers, who seemed surprisingly uninformed about CDA 230.So, I will admit that I was a bit surprised back in July when the court refused to dump the case. While the official ruling came in July, the Judge's rational was laid out at a hearing in June, in which he did agree to dump some of the claims, but kept one claim: an "unfair competition" claim. The reasoning was... very, very strange. Basically, the court claimed that under California law, Taylor could claim that Twitter's terms of service were "unconscionable" because they said the site could kick you off for any reason. It is true that California code 1670.5 says that "If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract." But how is Twitter's terms of service unconscionable?During the hearing, Twitter's lawyers seemed reasonably flummoxed that this was even being brought up and asked for more time to go back and research and brief the issue. And they were right to be confused. Because there's never been any other court finding that a basic online terms of service that says the site has the final word in deciding who can use the platform is "unconscionable" -- and that's partly because of CDA 230, that makes it clear the platform has the final say, and state law can't interfere with that. But here, the judge ignored all of that and suddenly decided that the "we can kick you off for any reason at all" clause must be both outside the purview of CDA 230 and possibly unconscionable. From the hearing (Carome is Twitter's lawyer, Patrick Carome, Peters is one of Taylor's lawyers, Noah Peters:):

Animatron Studio gives you the tools you need to create animations and graphics that will engage your audience, even if you have zero design or coding technical know-how. You can make mobile-friendly, entertaining animations in an intuitive, collaborative environment right in your browser. With Animatron, you've got the power to reach, engage with, educate, and connect to millions in new and unique ways. It's on sale for $50.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.

The DOJ's war on encryption continues, this time in a secret court battle involving Facebook. The case is under seal so no documents are available, but Reuters has obtained details suggesting the government is trying to compel the production of encryption-breaking software.

So much for my powers of prediction. After a Florida newspaper was hit with a request for contempt charges for publishing parts of a document a local school board tried (but failed) to redact, I suggested the court would side with the paper and say a few strong words about proper redaction techniques and the First Amendment. I could not be more wrong.

After fighting for years, it appears that Paul Hansmeier realized he was cooked. On Friday, he pleaded guilty to various fraud and money laundering charges related to his copyright trolling under the Prenda name. Hansmeier, of course, was one of the two "masterminds" (and I use that term loosely) behind Prenda along with John Steele, who pleaded guilty last year, and was set to be a witness against Hansmeier, who came up with some colorfully ludicrous theories to try to talk his way out of these charges.If you don't recall, Hansmeier and Steele started out as garden variety copyright trolls, suing tons of people and shaking them down for money, but they kept expanding the scam, to the point that they were setting up bogus honeypots with content they themselves uploaded to get IP addresses to shake down (with hilariously dumb attempts to cover up that it was them). They also set up fake shell companies as their own "clients" which didn't go over well in court. That's not even getting to the way that Steele and Hansmeier were clearly the beneficiaries of these shakedowns, or the fact that they tried to hide the money. And do we even mention the outright lying in court?One of the most incredible things in watching the whole Prenda saga over the years was just how much Steele and Hansmeier seemed absolutely 100% convinced that they could talk their way out of everything. No matter how bad it was getting, they would scream to the heavens about how everyone was lying about them and that eventually they'd be shown to be innocent. Yet now they've both pleaded guilty. Hansmeier's plea agreement has him pleading guilty to mail fraud and wire fraud, along with conspiracy to commit money laundering. The "deal" is that prosecutors won't charge him with even more crimes that they've since uncovered "including conduct associated with the defendant's bankruptcy proceedings." The agreement lays out much of the scam in pretty clear terms (the P.H. in the agreement appears to be Paul's brother Peter Hansmeier who there are differing opinions about his level of involvement in the scam, P.D. is obviously Paul Duffy, who was another bumbling part of the scam, and who died a few years back of "chronic ethanolism" as all of this was unraveling):

This week, our first place winner on the insightful side is Mason Wheeler with a response to Nintendo's takedown of major ROM sites and one professor's comments about the importance of libraries and archives:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2013, the White House incredibly put James Clapper in charge of independent NSA review, then tried to change its tune a bit when people rightly pointed out that this was insane. Meanwhile, Rep. Justin Amash discovered that the House Intelligence Committee had withheld important NSA documents from the rest of Congress, and that the White House knew it. Then, the latest leak revealed that the NSA abused the rules to spy on Americans thousands of times every year — since there was no real oversight, the FISC court just relied on the NSA's own statements to determine what was legal, and agents were told to withhold information from those in charge of oversight. Senators Wyden and Udall hinted that this was just the tip of the iceberg, while NSA defenders claimed the abuses were evidence of the system working well and that the numbers were impressive compared to the amount of spying the NSA does.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2008, Italy tried and failed to block all access to The Pirate Bay, with the predictable result of a spike in Italian traffic to the site. Universities were realizing that the RIAA was taking advantage of them in its crusade against file-sharing students, while one teenager targeted in a lawsuit managed to get damages reduced with an "innocent infringement" defense. Nintendo was freaking out about memory cards for the Nintendo DS, while Tiffany was continuing its futile efforts to hold eBay accountable for counterfeit products by appealing a court ruling that said they weren't (and this same week, a Belgian court was ruling the same thing).Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2003, eBay was only just starting to become the ecommerce platform of choice with folks setting up entire businesses on the site. ISPs were the ones fighting back against the RIAA, along with one accused file-sharer who was hitting the agency with a countersuit arguing that sharing does not equal distribution. There were early rumblings of "personalization" as the future of search engines, and the fairly new technology of MMS picture messages was being put to use for networked security cameras and medical emergencies. And nearly seven years before the iPad, there were lots of tablet computers hitting the market, but nobody wanted them.

The key idea behind open access is that everyone with an Internet connection should be able to read academic papers without needing to pay for them. Or rather without needing to pay again, since most research is funded using taxpayers' money. It's hard to argue against that proposition, or that making information available in this way is likely to increase the rate at which medical and scientific discoveries are made for the benefit of all. And yet, as Techdirt has reported, academic publishers that often enjoy profit margins of 30-40% have adopted a range of approaches to undermine open access and its aims -- and with considerable success. A recent opinion column in the Canadian journal University Affairs explains how traditional publishers have managed to subvert open access for their own benefit:

It's been a week or so since we last checked in on the Aloha Poke situation, so perhaps you were wondering how things were coming along with the Chicago chain that wasn't founded by Hawaiians attempting to bully native Hawaiian poke joints across the country out of using their own language and culture over trademark concerns. You will recall that Aloha Poke Co. had sent cease and desist notices to many poke restaurants that dared to use the ubiquitous Hawaiian term "Aloha" in their names, including to proprietors on the Hawaiian Islands themselves. That many operations throughout the country had been chugging along sharing this name and food culture without issue apparently didn't prevent Aloha Poke Co. from registering "Aloha Poke" as a trademark and then go the bullying route. The last touchstone in all of this was a hundreds-strong planned protest at the company's headquarters in Chicago, which indeed ended up happening.So, how have things gone since? Well, Aloha Poke Co. appears to be simply digging in its heels and trying to ride this storm out rather than backing down, but it's a strategy that doesn't appear to be working all that well. Just this week, the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, an organization that promotes and protects Hawaiian culture, has jumped into the fray, both voicing its displeasure at Aloha Poke Co.'s bullying and essentially filling up its homepage with news about the protests.

You may have heard the general mantra that "puns are the lowest form of comedy." Heathens say that, because puns are great and, if I had my way, there would be a legal requirement to use at least one in every legal document this country produces. They can also be used to lighten up what would otherwise be heavy legal actions. Such is the case with In-N-Out Burger, which decided to respond to what is pretty likely trademark infringement with a pun-laden cease and desist.We'll start with the product that was likely infringing on In-N-Out's trademarks, which itself involves some punnery.

Earlier this week, the Associated Press did a story revealing that even for Google users (on both Android and iPhone) who turned off location tracking Google was still tracking their location in some cases.

Add an extra layer of security to your browsing with NordVPN. Get online access anywhere with 3,521 worldwide server locations in 61 different countries, and you can connect 6 devices simultaneously. All data sent through NordVPN’s private tunnels is double encrypted, and with zero logs recorded, you can surf with greater confidence that your data is protected. A 2 years subscription is on sale for $69, or a 3 years subscription for $99.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.

As a New Jersey native I know how tempting it is for people to gratuitously bash my home state. But, you know, sometimes it really does have it coming.In this case it's because of the recent announcement of a new password policy for all of the New Jersey courts' online systems – ranging from e-filing systems for the courts to the online attorney registration system – that will now require passwords to be changed every 90 days.

The Telecom Act of 1996 mandates that the FCC routinely assess whether broadband is "being deployed to all Americans in a reasonable and timely fashion," and do something about it if that's not the case. As part of that mission, the FCC also periodically takes a look at the way it defines broadband to ensure the current definition meets modern consumer expectations and technical advancements. That's why, much to the telecom industry's chagrin, the FCC in 2015 changed the definition of broadband from a fairly-pathetic 4 Mbps downstream and 1 Mbps upstream to the current standard of 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream.Telecom monopolies (and the lawmakers paid to love them) whined incessantly about the changes at the time. Why? Because the higher definition only highlights how there's virtually no competition at faster speeds in the U.S. It also highlights how because countless U.S. telcos have shifted their focus to more immediately-profitable ventures (like flinging video ads at Millennials), they've neglected network upgrades on a comical scale. As a result, most modern telcos fail to even technically sell "broadband" across vast swaths of America, giving cable giants like Comcast a bigger broadband monopoly than ever before.As such, you can kind of understand why, if you're a lumbering broadband monopoly, why you'd prefer the definition of broadband remain at ankle height.With the FCC preparing its latest assessment of the broadband broadband industry as required by law, the question over whether the broadband standard should again be lifted has again raised its ugly head. Especially given that in the age of symmetrical gigabit (1 Gbps) connections and cloud storage, that 3 Mbps upstream standard is looking a little lame. But in a Notice of Inquiry (pdf) published last week, Pai’s FCC proposed keeping the current 25/3 definition intact, something that apparently annoyed his fellow Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel.In a statement (pdf), Rosenworcel suggests that symmetrical 100 Mbps would be a far more ambitious goal to aim for:

Cops in California have literally unbelievable protections. To ensure the "privacy" of government employees sworn to serve the public, the Cali legislature has kowtowed to state police unions to make disciplinary records all but impossible to obtain… by anyone.This has led to the expected results. Professional liars in cop uniforms offer unimpeached testimony filled with more lies as defense lawyers stand helplessly by, screwed out of offering effective counsel by state law. The law is so restrictive prosecutors are often unable to obtain these files. In the unlikely event a cop is being prosecuted, past misdeeds are hidden under a heavy layer of legislated opacity, hindering effectiveness on the other side.Sure, if you're the victim of police violence, your past is an open book. The cops will dump everything they have on you, from the shoplifting citation two decades ago to every charge ever brought (but ultimately dropped or dismissed) against you in your lifetime to smear your reputation and burnish their own. But if the court would be better served knowing the witness on the stand is an inveterate liar with a history of misconduct, justice will not only go blind but underserved under state law.This bill aims to change that.

Between the explosion in the craft beer industry and our pernicious ownership culture, the beer industry has enough of a trademark problem to regularly appear in our posts. While many of the disputes in the industry are generated by once-small breweries that have grown up and shed their permissive attitudes towards branding, just as many trademark disputes result from entities outside the industry attempting to pretend that the alcohol industries, if not craft beer specifically, are not markets all to their own. This lack of nuance occasionally pervades even within the USPTO, unfortunately.But sometimes the TTAB gets it right. Such is the case with Comrade Brewing, makers of its 'Superpower IPA' brew, for which the TTAB refused the opposition of The Wonderful Company, which makes fruit juices. At issue was the slogan for POM Wonderful juices: "Antioxidant Superpower."

A few years back, e-commerce company Newegg decided to take something of a scorched earth approach to all of the various patent trolls that came after it: it would never settle with a patent troll. While many trolls rely on the fact that it's cheaper to settle than to fight in court (even if you win), Newegg did the longer term calculation, and recognized that even if it cost more to defeat trolls in court, by being very public with its stance in fighting it would likely scare off trolls from continuing to sue the company. It took a few years, but the strategy mostly worked. Trolls have mostly learned to steer clear of Newegg.Last year, Cloudflare decided to up the ante a bit on such a strategy. After a patent troll went after it, Cloudflare didn't just promise to fight back, it promised to effectively burn the patent troll into the ground. It set up a bounty looking for prior art on every patent held by that patent troll (Blackbird Technologies), and also filed ethics complaints against the lawyers who ran the company, arguing that they were pretending not to practice law when they clearly were. That strategy has resulted in an easy win over Blackbird in court while various Blackbird patents are being challenged.It appears that approach is inspiring other companies as well. Streaming infrastructure company Bitmovin's General Counsel Ken Carter (who, notably, used to work at Cloudflare) put up a blog post describing just how it dealt with a recent patent troll. After first pointing out that patents can be important, and noting that the company itself holds some patents, the post reminds everyone that it's possible to abuse the patent system.

FCC "oversight" hearings continue to be comically lacking in the actual oversight department. As we noted previously, today was Congress' opportunity to hold the FCC and agency head Ajit Pai accountable for making up a DDOS attack and then lying (repeatedly) about it to the press, FBI investigators, and Congress. As we've previously stated, both e-mails obtained via FOIA and an FCC Inspector General report (pdf) found that the FCC bizarrely made up a DDOS attack to try and explain away the fact that John Oliver viewers pissed about the net neutrality repeal crashed the FCC comment system.The IG's report and internal e-mails clearly illustrate that not only did FCC CIO make up a DDOS, but several FCC staffers then misled Congress repeatedly about the total lack of evidence supporting that claim. The false statements were bad enough to warrant them being forwarded to the DOJ, which refused to prosecute anyone. But the e-mails also highlight how the FCC's press office repeatedly misled numerous press outlets, and even went so far as to issue statements denigrating reporters like Gizmodo's Dell Cameron for being "irresponsible" as they slowly uncovered the fake claims.In a functional democracy, this is the sort of thing that would be covered extensively at a hearing purportedly designed specifically to hold the FCC accountable to Congress and the public. In said fictional healthy democracy, Congress might even, you know, actually do something about it.But today's hearing was little more than a joke, rife with lots of giggling, football references, and numerous softball questions -- but few if any hard inquiries about the DDOS attack that wasn't. The closest thing Pai experienced to actually being pressured came from Senator Brian Schatz. But when pressed as to what he knew and when, Pai again threw his employees under the bus, denying that he had any knowledge of or role in the FCC's efforts to mislead Congress and public. The exchange is here for those interested:

Lots of government employees and officials would love to shut their critics up. The problem is that most methods they come up with don't work (at best) or are unconstitutional (at worst). That doesn't stop them from trying. The amount of hours expended trying to find ways to silence critics sits well above zero, making these efforts fraudulent as well as potentially unconstitutional.Never underestimate the creativity of the criticized class, as Tony Webster reports.

SitePoint will get you up to speed with premium access to a huge library of e-books, courses, and tutorials on topics ranging from blockchain and HTML to JavaScript, design, and much more. New content is added monthly, so you can always stay up to date. You'll get access to 125 e-books, 128 courses, and 25 tutorials. 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.

Last year at Defcon, the Voting Machine Hacking Village showed just how bad the security was on electronic voting machines. This is not a surprise, of course. It's a topic we've covered on Techdirt going back almost 20 years. But what's still most incredible is how much the voting machine manufacturers and election officials continue to resist the efforts of security experts to explain all of this. Even earlier this year, there were reports about the insane lengths that voting machine vendors were going to to try to stop Defcon from obtaining their machines:

It has only taken a few years, but the press, public and law enforcement appear to finally be waking up to the problem of SIM hijacking. SIM hijacking (aka SIM swapping or a "port out scam") involves a hacker hijacking your phone number, porting it over to their own device (often with a wireless carrier employee's help), then taking control of your personal accounts. As we've been noting, the practice has heated up over the last few years, with countless wireless customers saying their entire identities were stolen after thieves ported their phone number to another carrier, then took over their private data.Sometimes this involves selling valuable Instagram account names for bitcoin; other times it involves clearing out the target's banking or cryptocurrency accounts. Case in point: California authorities recently brought the hammer down on one 20-year-old hacker, who had covertly ported more than 40 wireless user accounts, in the process stealing nearly $5 million in bitcoin.One of the problems at the core of this phenomenon is that hackers have either tricked or paid wireless carrier employees to aid in the hijacking, or in some instances appear to have direct access to (apparently) poorly-secured internal carrier systems. That has resulted in lawsuits against carriers like T-Mobile for not doing enough to police their own employees, the unauthorized access of their systems, or the protocols utilized to protect consumer accounts from this happening in the first place.While T-Mobile has received the lion's share of negative press attention on this subject in recent months, AT&T this week got dragged into the fun. The company was sued this week for $224 million by a customer who says AT&T's failure to adequately protect his account resulted in the theft of nearly $24 million in cryptocurrency. The full complaint (pdf) notes that AT&T customer Michael Terpin is seeking $200 million in punitive damages and $24 million of compensatory damages for the cryptocurrency losses.The suit alleges that Terpin had his phone number stolen and ported out at least twice between mid 2017 and early 2018, resulting in the thief then hijacking his identity to empty out his cryptocurrency accounts. Terpin also accuses of AT&T of failing to protect its customers despite ample press coverage of the SIM hijacking phenomenon. Worse perhaps, the lawsuit alleges that the thief successfully hijacked his phone number despite AT&T adding "higher security level" protections, which AT&T specifically stated would protect his account from such hijinks. From the complaint:

Yet another content protection service decides it's better off letting the machines do the work, with predictably catastrophic results. The EFF first noticed the DMCA abuse being committed by "Topple Track," a content protection service offered by Symphonic Distribution. Symphonic talks big about its protection service, pointing out its position as one of the "leading members" of Google's "Trusted Copyright Program."The thing about trust is that it's hard to gain but easy to lose.

As you likely know, Germany has some very restrictive laws surrounding how and when Nazi iconography can appear in the country. This has resulted in a heavily-policed artistic community, particularly when it comes to video games, which has produced some fairly funny happenings about games accidentally going to Germany chock full of Nazi stuff and other funny happenings in which the game makers make a show of doing as little as possible to get around the law. In the realm of other media, such as movies, the German government has put in place a review process to make sure that the use of Nazi symbols furthers the artistic or historical accuracy of the entertainment. Video games have not had such a review system. And, look, on some level this sort of attempt by Germany to restrict the use of these hateful symbols is understandable. The kind of global embarrassment that comes with committing the worst genocide in history is the sort of thing that leaves a mark. But we've also pointed out that these German laws aren't so much stamping out fascist thought as they are putting the government's collective head in the sand as some kind of grand virtue signal to the planet.Which is why it's at least a tepid step forward that Germany has revised its position and will now allow Nazi iconography in some video games, some of the time, on a case by case basis.

Another (partial) win for the First Amendment, the ACLU, and American citizens. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned a decision forbidding the photography of CBP officers at border crossings. (h/t Mitra Ebadolahi)The CBP seems to have a problem respecting the First Amendment rights (along with several other rights) of American citizens when engaged in its border patrolling and protecting. This same appeals court recently allowed the heavily-harassed citizens of an Arizona border town to move forward with their First Amendment lawsuit against the agency, ruling that the CBP acted arbitrarily when dealing with protesters and activists documenting checkpoint activity. The record clearly showed the CBP removed people it didn't like from its imaginary zone of exclusion while allowing other random citizens more aligned with the CBP's open harassment of American citizens to venture inside the ad hoc DMZ to harass citizens documenting harassment.This lawsuit centers on allegations CBP officers confiscated cameras and phones of people documenting border checkpoint activity and destroyed photos and videos. Here are the narratives of the two plaintiffs, taken from the Appeals Court decision [PDF]:

Late last year, we discussed a lawsuit brought by Disney against Characters For Hire, a small company that sends costume characters to children's birthday parties. Those characters, as we said at the time, are barely-altered clear homages to storied Disney-owned characters, such as Dark Lord (Dearth Vader) and Big Hairy Guy (sigh, Chewbacca). While Disney sued over both trademark and copyright, the alterations to the characters and the very clear disclaimer Characters For Hire puts on its site and documents meant the chances for confusion as to Disney's affiliation was always non-existent. When you add that the changes in the characters and the medium in which they were offered at least partially put us in the idea/expression dichotomy zone for copyright law. That part of the law essentially says copyright applies to specific expressions (written stories, film, music, and sometimes characters), but not general ideas (a Dark Lord, a, sigh, Big Hairy Guy).Well, nearly a year later, the first legal returns have come in and they are not great for Disney.