Techdirt

Playboy apparently has lawyers with itchy trigger fingers. As first spotted by Law360, Playboy Entertainment Group has sued the BoingBoing, the popular and awesome blog that covers a variety of issues around culture and technology. The case is technically against the company that owns BoingBoing, called Happy Mutants LLC. Law360 claims the lawsuit claims that BoingBoing "stole every centerfold ever." But... that's not at all what the lawsuit says.It appears that the issue is this blog post from February of 2016, written by one of BoingBoing's core writers, Xeni Jardin. Here's a screenshot of the post from the lawsuit:As you can see, it's a blog post titled "Every Playboy Playmate Centerfold Ever." There's a very short paragraph that reads:

Oh, to be a lawyer retained by Taylor Swift™ -- free of concerns about your client's financial health or the nuances of intellectual property law. When not pursuing bogus defamation claims or targeting clear fair use cases, you can always bring the power of Swift® to bear on the unofficial adoration of the probably-not-a-white-supremacist singer's fanbase.Legal threat after legal threat sent following trademark filing after trademark filing in hopes of capturing 100% of all available SwiftDollars™. Why only collect royalties when you can submit individual lyrics from songs to the US Patent and Trademark Office to lock everyone else out of the Swift Merch Machine®?Ron Coleman -- who knows a thing or two about viable trademark registrations -- cuts to the heart of Swift's now-trademark trademark bullying. Quoting a more respectful article by Billboard, Coleman sets the stage:

The Learn to Code 2018 Bundle will give you a wide breadth of programming knowledge. Pay what you want for it and you'll get an introduction to R, a powerful programming language that helps developers solve even the most complex data problems. If you beat the average price listed in the store, you open up access to 9 other courses. They cover Angular, HTML, CSS, Bootstrap 4, Node, Java 9, React, C#, iOS 11 and Swift4, Python, JavaScript, PHP, and MySQL. It's over 140 hours of instruction to help get you up to speed on the latest in coding.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.

Actor/director Tommy Wiseau has, for some reason, been trying since June of this year to block the release of an unflattering documentary about his infamous 14-year-old film, The Room. Why Wiseau would be concerned about a documentary detailing the making of one of the worst films ever is beyond me, considering Wiseau's post-The Room career has generally been held together by the film's cult status as the worst film of all time, which has led to additional revenue and a number of personal appearances at screenings.Wiseau seems to want to have it all: the box office receipts from the film's cult status and a desire to be "respected" as an actor and director. These two desires are in constant competition, which is why Wiseau is now suing the director of a documentary Wiseau himself participated in making. (And why he's gone after other critics in the past using similar tactics.)The documentary, Room Full of Spoons, details the making of The Room. Up until June, Wiseau seemed relatively at peace with filmmaker Rick Harper's effort. At some point, Wiseau pulled out over "creative differences." This means Wiseau felt the documentary wasn't going to be respectful enough to its subject matter, Tommy Wiseau. Alex Ritman of The Hollywood Reporter has more details on Wiseau's exit from the documentary.

For years we've noted how large ISPs like Comcast quite literally write and buy protectionist state laws preventing towns and cities from building their own broadband networks (or striking public/private partnerships). These ISPs don't want to spend money to improve or expand service into lower ROI areas, but they don't want towns and cities to either -- since many of these networks operate on an open access model encouraging a little something known as competition. As such it's much cheaper to buy a state law and a lawmaker who'll support it -- than to actually try and give a damn.And while roughly twenty three states have passed such laws, Colorado's SB 152, co-crafted by Comcast and Centurylink in 2005, was notably unique in that it let local towns and cities hold local referendums on whether they'd like to ignore it. And over the last few years, an overwhelming number of Colorado towns and cities have voted to do so, preferring to decide local infrastructure issues for themselves instead of having lobbyists for Comcast dictate what they can or can't do in their own communities, with their own tax dollars.Yet another vote on this front was held this week in Colorado Springs. Note that the vote only opened the door to letting city voters consider building such a network, yet Comcast and Centurylink broke local spending records in their attempts to scuttle the ballot initiative. That included numerous misleading videos trying to convince locals that if they voted yes on ignoring the protectionist state laws, the city would struggle to pave roads and develop affordable housing.According to the Coloradoan, none of these efforts worked:

It's been no secret that the MPAA has been sticking its nose in the copyright laws and enforcement of Australia for some time now. From pressuring government officials in the country to force ISPs to act as copyright police, to trying to keep Australian law as stuck in antiquity as it possibly could be, to trying to force the country to enforce American intellectual property law except the parts it doesn't like, the MPAA nearly seems to think of itself as an official branch of the Australian government. Given the group's nakedly hostile stance towards fair use, it should be no surprise that it doesn't want to see that sort of law exported to other countries and has worked to actively prevent its installation Down Under.It seems these efforts are not working, however, as the Australian government is currently entertaining not only adopting American-style fair use laws, but also adding exceptions to geo-blocking as well. The MPAA, as you'll have already guessed, is not happy about this. This whole thing started with the government responding to its own Productivity Commission's report on ways to make copyright law in the country better, so as to make Australian citizens more productive.

In disturbing, but sadly unsurprising news, a law enforcement officer is being accused of killing a family pet -- one that very likely did not need to be killed. Kelli Sullivan's dog was shot by a sheriff's deputy when the deputy responded to Sullivan's call about being harassed by a neighbor. Sullivan soon learned why you're taking the lives of everyone and everything into your own hands by asking for law enforcement assistance.

Six firefighters fired over a racist incident are the possible, but unlikely, beneficiaries of Florida public records law. Here's how they ended up fired, via the Miami Herald, which broke the story. (h/t Boing Boing)

Following the Senate Commerce Committee voting SESTA out of Committee this morning, Senator Ron Wyden quickly announced that he is placing a public hold on the bill while at the same time issuing a warning about just how damaging the bill could be:

David Boies is one of the highest profile lawyers in the country. I first became aware of him when he (as outside counsel) represented the Justice Department in the overreaching antitrust case against Microsoft in the 1990s. However, I think most people became aware of him when he represented Al Gore in Bush v. Gore. Since then, nearly every time he's popped up in Techdirt, it's been doing really, really sketchy things. He was the lawyer for SCO in that company's insane "set open source on fire" lawsuit against IBM over Linux. He represented Oracle in its ridiculous lawsuit against Google over whether APIs are covered by copyright*. He represented Sony Pictures after its email was hacked and threatened lots of journalists -- including us! -- for publishing stories based on those leaked emails (we told him "go pound sand.") And, honestly, until earlier this week, I thought the most egregious efforts by Boies had been his connection to Theranos, the disgraced medical devices company, where Boies wasn't just a lawyer for the company, but on the board, and participated in terrible and far-reaching attempts to punish whistleblowers at the company.But, it turns out that Boies' activity in trying to stifle whistlebowers and reporters regarding Theranos and Sony Pictures were just the warm up act for a truly horrifying bit of business revealed by Ronan Farrow in the New Yorker this week. It was widely reported that Boies was a key player on Harvey Weinstein's legal team, responding to the claims of sexual harassment and assault, but the Farrow article shows just how deep the campaign went, with Boies allegedly orchestrating an "army of spies" to try to trick Weinstein's accusers and reporters working on the story to reveal what they knew. The whole article is incredible, but here's just a snippet, involving one of Weinstein's most outspoken victims, Rose McGowan:

Earlier today, the Senate Commerce Committee had its markup on SESTA -- the deeply flawed bill that claims to be about stopping sex trafficking, but which will do little on that front. Instead, it will create massive problems for lots and lots of small internet sites. The bill sailed through the markup, getting approved via a voice vote with no discussion or debate. As expected, last week's decision by the Internet Association -- the trade group representing all of the large internet companies -- ensured that the bill would sail through the markup. Supporters of the bill are now wrongly insisting that "tech" now supports the bill.However, as we've detailed, while the giant companies like Facebook and Google can handle whatever fallout there is from this bill, smaller sites and even users of those big sites will be at risk. So it was extra depressing to see Facebook's Sheryl Sandberg post her glowing, but factually inaccurate, support for SESTA.

Explore the skies and take the footage to prove it with the SKEYE Mini Drone. From mastering smooth landings to pulling off flips and rolls, you choose the adventure and the SKEYE Mini Drone will take you there. This perfectly-sized drone packs both a beginner and veteran pilot mode for a guaranteed good time no matter your experience. It's on sale for $59.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

So we've already talked a lot about the problems of the "knowledge" standard in the amended version of SESTA, in that it's way too broad, and leaves smaller sites completely adrift in figuring out if they're on the right side of the law. But there were other changes in the amended version of SESTA as well -- some good, and some bad. Law professor Eric Goldman has an excellent post detailing the changes, but I want to focus on one really perplexing one.For reasons that are totally unclear, SESTA now allows states Attorneys General to file civil charges against websites for violating sex trafficking laws. That's... weird. One good change in the new SESTA was the removal of letting state AGs go after sites for just violating state trafficking laws by requiring "conduct that violated a Federal criminal" trafficking law. That was important, because state laws are a hodgepodge of rules, and can change (often in weird ways) making it next to impossible for many websites to make sure they're magically in compliance with every state's laws on this issue. But perhaps to keep the state AGs happy, this was added instead:

One of the important elements of the First Amendment, and its protections of opinion, is that it opens up all kinds of debates -- from the political to the scientific. Indeed, the very nature of scientific research in academia is one of constant debate between researchers with different viewpoints. This has gone on for centuries. And, yet, it appears that at least one scientist has apparently decided that the standard nature of scientific debate is now defamatory. He's almost certainly wrong, but the details of this case are disturbing. Stanford professor Mark Jacobson apparently was less than happy to see criticism from another scientist, Christopher Clack. Rather than just respond with another paper, Jacobson has sued Clack and the National Academy of Sciences for defamation in the Superior Court in Washington DC (more on that in a moment).The complaint is worth reading as it lays out the path to this dispute in a pretty straightforward way. Jacobson and some other authors published an article in PNAS, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in late 2015. Early in 2016, Clack communicated with Jacobson via phone and email to better understand some of the assumptions in the original paper. Clack (and others) then published a "rebuttal" article (also in PNAS) to Jacobson's original article. Jacobson, from the complaint, appears to be upset that Clack never requested "a time series of model output from the Jacobson Article" or any information other than what was discussed via phone and email in early 2016.Upon being notified by PNAS of Clack's rebuttal article, and being asked if he'd liked to respond in a letter that PNAS would also publish, Jacobson claimed that Clack's paper had 30 false statements and "five materially misleading statements," and asked PNAS to withdraw the article. PNAS's deputy executive editor responded to ask if he could send Clack and his co-author's Jacobson's concerns, leading Jacobson to write a "slightly updated" list of grievances and specifically asked PNAS to forward them to Clack and the others. For whatever reason PNAS chose not to do so which is its right. There was some more back and forth before Jacobson realized that his list of complaints had not been forwarded, which seems to have greatly upset Jacobson (all the bold is directly from the complaint itself):

A small bit of good news from our lol-worthy Justice Department: federal prosecutors have decided they're no longer interested in jailing someone for laughing at the Attorney General. That isn't the entirety of the story (or the dropped charges, for that matter), so here's a little background.Back in January, Desiree Fairooz attended Jeff Sessions' confirmation hearing. Statements made by a legislator provoked an unfortunate response from this pink-hatted attendee.

Despite all of the coverage we provide on alcohol-related trademark disputes, Moosehead Breweries has still managed to separate itself from the pack with its aggressive trademark enforcement behavior. You should recall that this is the brewery that sued a root beer company called Moose Whiz and a brewery making a beer called Müs Knuckle under the theory that because it somehow got a trademark on the term "moose" it therefore means that any beverage company using that word is infringing its trademark. That's not correct on multiple fronts, including the question of whether any customers are actually or potentially being confused by the so-called infringing uses. Add to that the somewhat strange circumstance of Canada's CIPO approving a heritage word like "moose" in the Canadian market.Well, Moosehead is still at it, this time suing a brewery called Hop 'N Moose over that same trademark.

Once again, Disney has decided to sacrifice goodwill for brand perception. Not content to limit itself to sending C&Ds to kids' birthday party performers, Disney's latest act of self-savagery has resulted in backlash from several top journalistic entities.Back in September, the LA Times dug into Disney's supremely cosy relationship with Anaheim's government -- one that has produced years of subsidies, incentives, and tax shelters for the entertainment giant. Disney wasn't happy with the report, so it responded the way any rational company would: it issued a statement stating the articles were full of errors and claimed the LA Times "showed a complete disregard for basic journalistic standards." (Despite these claims, Disney has yet to ask for corrections to the LA Times' investigative articles.)Then it responded the way any irrational company would: by locking LA Times reviewers out of advance movie screenings.

I don't think I need to say much to introduce this week's topic — we're all well aware of the conversation about Facebook's role in the presidential election, including questions of filter bubbles, fake news, foreign influence, and so on and so on. As is always the case in situations like this, a lot of people seem to be looking for easy answers, and easy places to point fingers of blame, so in this week's episode we're discussing why it's just not that simple.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.

So we've spent some time talking about why SESTA is such a bad bill even in its updated form (which fixes just a tiny sliver of the overall problems). And we may have some more soon about other problems with the language in the bill, but for now I want to make this even more real and ask Congress -- and SESTA authors Senators Rob Portman and Richard Blumenthal, specifically, what they think bloggers, independent journalists, citizen journalists and anyone who hosts comments on their site should do if SESTA passes. Because all these sites are platforms protected by Section 230 of the CEA and, as SESTA is written, parts of it are so unclear that it could introduce significant legal liability, or at least uncertainty over whether or not they're liable for the comments readers post on their sites and articles.One thing we've heard over and over again from SESTA supporters is that the bill won't have any impact on most sites because (they claim) "no one accidentally facilitates sex trafficking." We wonder how they can be so certain. Ignoring, for the moment, that all sorts of important speech can be branded as speech related to trafficking, even for speech we all agree is problematic, it is not clear what the Congressional authors of the bill, and SESTA's staunchest advocates, think smaller sites, like ours, should do to ensure that none of that content ever sneaks through and ends up in our comment sections. To use us as an example: we're a small site, with a small team and limited resources. But we do allow comments on our posts, because we think community is an important aspect of a modern media site -- and we get a lot of comments, to the point that it is literally impossible for us to review every single comment on the site. We also, obviously, get a fair number of spam comments, and have put in place spam filters. The spam filters are pretty good, but they will make a few Type I and Type II errors at times (i.e., accidentally holding a legit comment and accidentally letting through a spam comment).The number of comments (spam and not spam) vary day by day, but it's not uncommon to deal with on the order of 2000 comments or so (both spam and not spam) on a daily basis. We cannot read through all of them. And at least some of the spam may be advertising questionable and illegal behavior -- potentially sex trafficking. Here's an example that I found in our spam filter. The title of the spam reads "hot chinese women" but the text of the comment links to a site advertising "columbian girls" and while we've redacted part of the URL (we don't want to promote them at all), as you can see, part of the domain involves "love." Most of the text is nonsense garbage which is just designed to get through a spam filter (thankfully, in this case, it did not work):Is this comment "facilitating sex trafficking" under federal law? I certainly hope not. But it's possible that the links in that spam go to a site that facilitates sex trafficking. And, while this comment was caught in our spam filter, what if it had gotten through? Do we now have "knowledge" that Techdirt, via its open comments, "assisted, supported, or facilitated" a violation of sex trafficking law? I would still argue that we don't, because we had no knowledge of that particular comment, and if we had seen it sneak through the spam filters, we clearly would have flagged it as spam and taken it off the site. But... the standard in the bill is not at all clear. Even worse: could this very post -- in which I'm explaining to Congress the uncertainty created by its own bill -- be used as evidence of me showing "knowledge" that sometimes spammers try to post these kinds of comments on our site? Is that enough to pass the hurdle in the bill to suggest I now have the requisite "knowledge" to potentially be both civilly and criminally liable? That would be a patently ridiculous outcome, but that, alone, represents some of the key problems of the bill as written.Indeed, my concerns about merely asking Congress what sites like ours should do, demonstrate the automatic chilling effect in the bill. The chilling effect is happening now, before the bill is even passed.I would hope that most rational people would say that we should not be liable just because some spammer is possibly clever enough to get a comment like this around our spam filters. But... as the bill is worded now, I am left wondering how do I avoid such liability? There are no clear safe harbors that tell me what steps to take to avoid such liability. Are we required to use a spam filter? What if none are perfect enough? Is the only way I can protect Techdirt be to kill the comment section and all the benefits a comment section enables? Can Senators Rob Portman and Richard Blumenthal tell me what to do? After all, during the hearing on this bill, when Blumenthal was told about its effect on smaller, independent sites, he insisted that such sites were "outliers" who "should be prosecuted." Is that what Blumenthal really thinks? A blog with a spam filter that is not 100% accurate should be prosecuted? If that's not what he thinks, then shouldn't the law he helped write make it clear for bloggers like me that merely allowing comments should not expose us to liability? Do small sites like Techdirt need to get pre-approval by the Internet Association who endorsed the bill to know if we'd be ok? Or, more likely, should sites like ours now need to go spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on lawyers to get an opinion that won't actually stop any potential lawsuit?I am sure that many supporters of SESTA will argue that this is an extreme scenario. They will say, "Oh, come on, no one is going to go after you for a spam comment." I hope that's true! But, under the language of the bill, it's unclear. And that's the problem. We've certainly seen (repeatedly) that when someone wants to attack a site, they will use whatever laws they can find on the books. To make matters worse, SESTA also allows state Attorneys General to bring both civil and criminal suits. We've certainly upset some state Attorneys General in the past. Would a vindictive one use this opportunity to stifle Techdirt and shut it down? I, again, hope not, but we're living in an age where apparently it's considered okay for politicians to use their bully pulpits to threaten legal action against opponents, including the press.There may be ways to improve SESTA -- but many of the ideas on the table also have potential serious negative consequences. We should be engaged in a careful discussion about those consequences and the costs and benefits of various approaches. There needs to be a clear explanation for how sites like ours can avoid these risks. But that's not what's happening. Small sites don't have the resources of a Facebook or a Google. They can't just spend thousands of dollars on lawyers to figure out how to navigate this new vague language, which wouldn't even guarantee that they won't get in trouble just because, say, a spam filter isn't good enough.SESTA isn't just a bad bill because it won't do anything to stop trafficking (the trafficking will continue). It leaves smaller sites, such as ours, completely in the lurch over what our own level of risk is. So, a plea to Congress -- and Senators Portman and Blumenthal specifically: if you are going to move forward on this bill at least fix it so that sites like ours know what to do to stay on the right side of the law.

Taylor Swift's legal representation is busy again. Really, her reps are never not busy, thanks to her desire to capture the entirety of the Taylor Swift market, but this particular legal threat -- aimed at a blogger -- oversteps its bounds egregiously.PopFront editor Meghan Herning wrote a post detailing Swift's unofficial position as a white supremacist hero. While there's nothing in the post claiming Swift has directly encouraged this subset of her following, it did point out that she's remained curiously silent on race issues, as well as made use of Nazi-esque imagery in her videos.Swift is not amused, apparently. William Briggs of Venable LLP sent threatening letter [PF] demanding the removal of the PopFront post. The letter claims the post is defamatory and filled with "malicious lies." More specifically, Swift apparently doesn't care for the following post content:

It's always important to back up your data. Zoolz Intelligent Cloud is a new product that gives you 100GB of Hot Storage. Using artificial intelligence, Zoolz provides users with a unique approach to backup, analyze, and organize their data with facial and object recognition. You can upload photos from your camera roll as well as connected social media accounts and can upgrade to include mobile back up as well. It also streams all HD, 3D, 2k, & 4K video instantly or with preview snippets. Zoolz Intelligent Cloud is 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 Internet Association's support for SESTA is truly bizarre. Should its support cause the bill to pass it will be damaging to every one of its members. Perhaps some members feel otherwise, but it is hopelessly naïve for any of them to believe that they will have the resources to stave off all the potential liability, including criminal liability, SESTA invites to their companies generally and to their management teams specifically, or that they will be able to deploy these resources in a way that won't destroy their user communities by over-censoring the creativity and expression they are in the business of providing forums for.But that's only part of the problem, because what no one seems to be remembering is that Section 230 does not just protect the Internet Association's platform members (and their management teams) from crippling liability; it also protects its platform members' users, and if SESTA passes that protection will be gone.Naturally, Section 230 does not insulate users from liability in the things they themselves use the platforms to communicate. It never has. That's part of the essential futility of SESTA, because it is trying to solve a problem that was not a problem. People who publish legally wrongful content have always been subject to liability, even federal criminal liability, and SESTA does not change that.But what everyone seems to forget is that on certain platforms users are not just users; in their use of these systems, they actually become platforms themselves. Facebook users are a prime example of this dynamic, because when users post status updates that are open for commenting, they become intermediary platforms for all those comments. Just as Facebook provides the space for third-party content in the form of status updates, users who post updates are now providing the space for third parties to provide content in the form of comments. And just as Section 230 protects platforms like Facebook from liability in how people use the space it provides, it equally protects its users for the space that they provide. Without Section 230 they would all be equally unprotected.True, in theory, SESTA doesn't get rid of Section 230 altogether. It supposedly only introduces the risk of certain types of liability for any company or person dependent on its statutory protection. But as I've noted, the hole SESTA pokes through Section 230's general protection against liability is enormous. Whether SESTA's supporters want to recognize it or not, it so substantially undermines Section 230's essential protective function as to make the statute a virtual nullity.And it eviscerates it for everyone, corporate platforms and individual people alike – even those very same individual people whose discussion-hosting activity has been what's made platforms like Facebook so popular. While every single platform, regardless of whether it is a current member of Internet Association, an unaffiliated or smaller platform, or a platform that has yet to be invented, will be harmed by SESTA, the particular character of Facebook, as a platform hosting the platforms of individual users, means it will be hit extra hard. It suddenly becomes substantially more difficult to maintain these sorts of dynamic user communities when a key law enabling those user communities is now taken away, because in its absence it becomes significantly more risky for any individual user to continue to host this conversation on the material they post. Regardless of whether that material is political commentary, silly memes, vacation pictures, or anything else people enjoy sharing with other people, without Section 230's critical protection insulating them from liability in whatever these other people should happen to say about it, there are no comments that these users will be able to confidently allow on their posts without fear of an unexpectedly harsh consequence should they let the wrong ones remain.

We've noted for years how giant ISPs have literally written and purchased protectionist laws in more than twenty states restricting towns and cities from building their own broadband networks. Many of these laws even go so far as to restrict these towns from striking public/private partnerships with companies like Google Fiber, often one of the only options for areas incumbent ISPs have declared not-profitable enough to serve. In this way giant ISPs get their cake and eat it too: they don't have to expand service, but make sure nobody else can either.Colorado's SB 152 is one such law. SB 152 was a 2005 product of lobbying from Comcast and CenturyLink, and required communities jump through numerous hoops should they want to simply make decisions regarding their own, local infrastructure. Like all such laws the ISP pretense was that they were simply looking to protect taxpayers from financial irresponsibility (an idea often lacking in ISPs' daily business efforts), though it's abundantly clear the real goal was to prop up and protect the dysfunctional broadband duopoly status quo from anything vaguely resembling change or competition.However, over the last few years ballot initiatives have allowed several Colorado communities like Boulder, Montrose, and Centennial to take back their right to determine their infrastructure needs for themselves and ignore the restrictions SB 152 imposes. Rather unsurprisingly, residents angry at substandard service from the likes of Comcast have been overwhelmingly opting out of the restrictive state law. Again -- not because they think building a network will be fun -- but because they're so disgusted by incumbent service they feel they have no other option.Fort Collins is the latest city to this week vote on opting out of SB 152. To be clear: opting out of the law's restrictions only opens the door to the possibility of building a network or striking public/private partnerships. But the incumbent ISPs like Comcast that bought the law have spent more than $200,000 to prevent that conversation from even happening:

Last month, we wrote about the strange and unfortunate decision by a magistrate judge in the copycat lawsuit by the American Chemical Society against Sci-Hub, the "renegade" online repository of academic knowledge. As we've discussed for years, the copyright attacks on Sci-Hub are silly, given the entire stated purpose of copyright is supposed to be to increase "learning" (and there's rarely a monetary incentive to the scholars writing academic articles). Copyright in academic papers is silly for a whole host of reasons, and then using copyright law to take down what is effectively an incredibly useful library of academic knowledge seems to run entirely counter to the basis of copyright law.And yet, things with Sci-Hub keep getting dumber. After it lost the lawsuit Elsevier filed against it, the American Chemical Society jumped in to file a copy cat lawsuit. The issue last month was our surprise that a magistrate judge recommended an injunction against third parties who were not parties to the lawsuit, demanding that they block all access to Sci-Hub. This could impact tons of ISPs, search engines, domain registrars and more. On Friday, amazingly, the Title III judge on the case, Judge Leonie Brinkema, more or less went with the magistrate's recommendations, with one slight change. You can see the order and injunction either at those links, or embedded below.Because Sci-Hub -- run by a woman who doesn't live in the US -- chose to ignore the lawsuit, this is a default judgment, so the judge never got to hear anyone else's viewpoint, other than ACS. It's troubling that the judge -- just prior to issuing the injunction -- decided to reject an attempted amicus brief from CCIA, which sought to explain why site blocking is not allowed as a remedy. The judge did make one change, which at the very least improves the injunction slightly. The official injunction reads as follows:

Seeing trademark bullies in operation, particularly when a large entity bullies a small business, will never cease being a source of frustration for me. That said, my frustration gets supercharged when the trademark being wielded as a bullying weapon is laughably generic and clearly should never have been granted in the first place. And when the bully is attacking a company that it doesn't even compete with, that's the anger-cherry on top of the hate-sundae.Speaking of which: meet Village Hotels. Based in the UK, the chain operates 29 hotel properties and makes for itself a great deal of money. BH Village Inn, on the other hand, is a community owned pub in Roughlee, Lancashire. It has no rooms for rent. It has no concierge. It was simply a pub, once known as the Bay Horse Inn, which was bought by three hundred residents of the town and re-opened as the Bay Horse Village Inn, as a nod to the community ownership. They tried to register the name of the pub as a trademark. That's when Village Hotels fired off a threat letter.

Court decisions stripping officers of immunity for civil liberties violations are still mostly an anomaly. But we'll take what we can get. This immunity-stripping decision by the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court appears to have been aided by the police department's own dashcam video, which helped dispel some of the "our word against yours" haze that clouds excessive force cases.In this case, acts of violence followed several seizures (of the epileptic variety, rather than the law enforcement variety). From the decision [PDF]:

In these times in which I have spent many words and more calories lamenting the hyper-partisan uber-politicization of, well, pretty much everything, I have tended to focus on the primary effects of that silliness. It makes for bad elections, and therefore bad democracy. It grinds any kind of progress in government to a halt. It results in too many people making too little time to actualy listen to those that might not think as they do, instead devolving entirely too many conversations into soundbite name-calling, as though we were all participating on some national cable news roundtable.But the secondary effects of all of this are both important and terrible as well. An example of this can be found in major media companies responding to this partisanship, and particularly the silly amount of noise being made about how media itself is partisan, by instituting social media policies that are both draconian and stupid on the business side. And, if this sort of thing makes you feel any better, it happens on both sides of the political aisle. In recent weeks, for instance, both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have rolled out social media policies disallowing their respective journalists from publishing anything partisan.

We've reached the point in terrorism hysteria where someone can be prosecuted simply for having a copy of book already owned by millions. Ryan Gallagher details the trial of Josh Walker -- a man who actually left the UK to fight against terrorists, only to be charged under the nation's terrorism laws when he returned.

In the end it wasn't regulators, but giant international egos that derailed Sprint's latest attempt to acquire T-Mobile. As last week's rumors had suggested, T-Mobile owner Deustche Telecom and Sprint majority owner Softbank couldn't agree on terms of the latest attempted megamerger, formally calling off the deal over the weekend. At issue, apparently, was the fact that T-Mobile wanted greater control over the merged company in the wake of the deal. Company executives wanted to keep T-Mobile's momentum, which has resulted in bigger net subscriber gains per quarter than any other U.S. carrier, intact.The failure is good news for consumers, employees, and business customers alike. Wall Street had estimated that the deal would have killed between 10,00 and 30,000 jobs -- potentially more positions that Sprint currently even has. Telecom history suggests that the reduction of major competitors from four to three would have also had a profoundly-negative impact on overall competition (go ask a Canadian). As a result users not only likely would have seen higher rates, but the end of the recent resurgence in unlimited data plans -- only made possible by T-Mobile's competitive disruption of the market.In a joint statement, the two companies pay a little empty lip service to the supposed "consumer benefits" of the deal, before promising to get back to upgrading their networks and competing:

Keeping tabs on your network can help keep your important and personal information secure. For $29, GlassWire Pro for PC helps to visualize your past and current network traffic to help you better understand what is going on in the background. It alerts you to suspicious activity, allows you to block access by specific programs with its firewall, and uses limited resources so it won't slow down your computer. The tools allow you to monitor specific applications and protocols, and the Pro version lets you monitor up to 3 computers.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.

In my last post, I discussed why it is so important for platforms to be able to speak about the discovery demands they receive, seeking to unmask their anonymous users. That candor is crucially important in ensuring that unmasking demands can't damage the key constitutional right to speak anonymously, without some sort of check against their abuse.The earlier post rolled together several different types of discovery instruments (subpoenas, warrants, NSLs, etc.) because to a certain extent it doesn't matter which one is used to unmask an anonymous user. The issue raised by all of them is that if their power to unmask an anonymous user is too unfettered, then it will chill all sorts of legitimate speech. And, as noted in the last post, the ability for a platform receiving an unmasking demand to tell others it has received it is a critical check against unworthy demands seeking to unmask the speakers behind lawful speech.The details of each type of unmasking instrument do matter, though, because each one has different interests to balance and, accordingly, different rules governing how to balance them. Unfortunately, the rules that have evolved for any particular one are not always adequately protective of the important speech interests any unmasking demand necessarily affects. As is the case for the type of unmasking demand at issue in this post: a federal grand jury subpoena.Grand jury subpoenas are very powerful discovery instruments, and with good reason: the government needs a powerful weapon to be able to investigate serious crimes. There are also important constitutional reasons for why we equip grand juries with strong investigatory power, because if charges are to be brought against people, it's important for due process reasons that they have been brought by the grand jury, as opposed to a more arbitrary exercise of government power. Grand juries are, however, largely at the disposal of government prosecutors, and thus a grand jury subpoena essentially functions as a government unmasking demand. The ability to compel information via a grand jury subpoena is therefore not a power we can allow to exist unchecked.Which brings us to the story of the grand jury subpoena served on Glassdoor, which Paul Levy and Ars Technica wrote about earlier this year. It's a story that raises three interrelated issues: (1) a poor balancing of the relevant interests, (2) a poor structural model that prevented a better balancing, and (3) a gag that has made it extraordinarily difficult to create a better rule governing how grand jury subpoenas should be balanced against important online speech rights.Glassdoor is a platform focused on hosting user-provided information about employers. Much of the speech it hosts is necessarily contributed anonymously so that the speakers can avoid any fallout from their candor. This is the sort of fallout that, if they had to incur it, would discourage them from contributing information others might find valuable. The seriousness of these sorts of consequences is why the district court decision denying Glassdoor's attempts to resist the grand jury subpoena seeking to unmask their users reflects such a poor balancing of the relevant interests. Perhaps if the subpoena had been intended to unmask people the government believed were themselves guilty of the crime being investigated, the balance might have tipped more in favor of enforcing it. But the people who the subpoena was seeking to unmask were simply suspected as possibly knowing something about the crime that others were apparently committing. It is not unreasonable for the government to want to be able to talk to witnesses, but that desire to talk to them is not the only interest present here. These are people who were simply availing themselves of their right to speak anonymously, and who, if this subpoena is enforced, are going to be shocked to suddenly find the government on their doorstep wanting to talk to them.This sort of unmasking is chilling to them and anyone else who might want to speak anonymously because it means that there's no way they ever will be able to speak should their speech happen to ever somehow relate (however tangentially) to someone else's criminal behavior. It is also inconsistent with the purported goal of fighting crime because it will prevent criminal behavior from coming to light in the first place, for few will want to offer up information if it will only tempt trouble for them at some point in the future.This mis-balancing of interests is almost a peripheral issue in this case, however. The more significant structural concern is why such a weak balancing test was used. As discussed previously, in order to protect the ability to speak anonymously online, it is important for a platform to be able to resist demands to unmask their users in cases where the reason for the unmasking does not substantially outweigh the need to protect people's right to speak anonymously online. But the district court denied Glassdoor's attempt to resist the subpoena when it chose to apply the test from Branzburg v. Hayes, a Supreme Court case focused on the ability to resist a grand jury subpoena. Branzburg, however, has nothing to do with the Internet or Internet platforms. It is a case from the 1970s that was solely focused on whether the First Amendment gave journalists the right to resist a grand jury subpoena. Ultimately it decided that they generally had no such right, at least so long as the government was not shown to be acting in bad faith, which, while not nothing, is not a standard that is particularly protective of anonymity. It also barely even addressed the interests of the confidential sources themselves, dismissing their interest in maintaining anonymity as a mere "preference," and one the Court presumed was being sought only to shield themselves from prosecution for their own criminal culpability.The upshot of Branzburg is that the journalist, as an intermediary for a source's information, had no right to resist a grand jury subpoena. Unfortunately, Branzburg simply can't be extended to the online world where, for better or worse, essentially all speech must be intermediated by some sort of platform or service in order to happen. The need to let the platforms resist grand jury subpoenas therefore has less to do with whether an intermediary itself has a right to resist them and everything to do with the the right of their users to speak anonymously, which, far from being a preference, is an affirmative right the Supreme Court, after Branzburg, subsequently recognized.A better test, and one that respects the need to maintain this critical speech right, is therefore needed, which is why Glassdoor appealed the district court's ruling. Unfortunately, its appeal has raised a third issue: while there is often a lot of secrecy surrounding a grand jury investigation, in part because it makes sense to keep the subject of an investigation in the dark, preserving that level of secrecy does not necessarily require keeping absolutely everything related to the subpoena under seal. Fortunately the district court (and the DOJ, who agreed to this) recognized that some information could safely be released, particularly related to Glassdoor's challenge of the subpoena's enforcement generally, and thanks to that limited unsealing we can tell that the case involved a misapplication of Branzburg to an Internet platform.Unfortunately the Ninth Circuit didn't agree to this limited disclosure and sealed the entirety of Glassdoor's appeal, even the parts that were already made public. The effects of this sealing included that it became impossible for potential amici to weigh in in support of Glassdoor and to argue for a better rule that would allow platforms to better protect the speech rights of their users. While Glassdoor had been ably litigating the case, the point of amicus briefs is to help the court see the full implications of a particular ruling on interests beyond those immediately before it, which is a hard thing for the party directly litigating to do itself. The reality is that Glassdoor is not the first, and will not be the last, platform to get a grand jury subpoena, but unless the rules governing platforms' ability to resist are stronger than what's afforded by Branzburg, the privacy protection speakers have depended on will continue to evaporate should their speech ever happen to capture the interest of a federal prosecutor with access to grand jury.For all we know, of course, the Ninth Circuit might have seen its point and quashed the subpoena. Or maybe it upheld it and maybe the FBI has now unpleasantly surprised those Glassdoor users. We may never know, just as we may never know if there are other occasions where courts have used specious reasoning to allow grand jury subpoenas to strip speakers of their anonymity. Even if the Ninth Circuit indeed fixed the problems with this questionable attempt at unmasking, by doing it in secret it's missed an important opportunity to provide guidance to lower courts to help ensure that they don't allow other questionable attempts to keep happening to speakers in the future.

If you're playing along at home, you might have noticed that the Trump administration has so far been little more than a glorified rubber stamp for the whims of major broadband mono/duopolies like Comcast. But while ISPs have had great luck convincing the federal government to weaken broadband deployment standards, protect uncompetitive business broadband monopolies, kill broadband privacy protections, defend price-gouging prison phone monopolies and axe net neutrality -- a growing number of states have proven less susceptible to Comcast lobbying charms.When the government gutted broadband privacy rules earlier this year, more than thirty states rushed to create their own guidelines for privacy in the modern era. And while having disparate, disjointed state-by-state protections isn't always ideal, it wouldn't have occurred if ISP lobbyists hadn't successfully gutted modest federal protections. With federal lawmakers all but in their back pockets, ISPs like Verizon have shifted their focus to these uncooperative states. Like California, where ISP lobbyists scuttled a new EFF-supported broadband privacy law by claiming it would aid extremists, increase popups, and harm consumers.But these major ISPs have since been lobbying the FCC, urging it to ban states from passing any consumer protections in the wake of the federal government's apathy-for-hire. Verizon has been telling the FCC that letting states impose their own consumer protections would be a disaster:

It's no secret that the Chinese authorities wish to have control over every aspect of life in China, including what people say and do online. Here they are laying down what academic papers people can read, as reported by a new story in the New York Times:

This week, our first place comment on the insightful side comes from Cdaragorn, offering some perspective on the field drug test that identified donut crumbs as methamphetamine:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2012, the UN's ITU was trying to butt in on patent issues despite nobody wanting that, while CNN was making the all-too-common mistake of equating patents with innovation. Both the MPAA and Megaupload were trying to get in on the fight over what would happen to users' files, while the DOJ was trying to make sure nobody took too close a look at its activities in the case. This was also the week that George Lucas surprised everyone by selling Star Wars and all of Lucasfilm's other properties to Disney.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2007, following the shutdown of OiNK, Trent Reznor stepped up to explain why the file sharing network had been cool, while TorrentFreak was keeping track of the many new sites popping up in its wake and demonstrating the pointlessness of the shutdown. Meanwhile, the EFF was pushing movie studios to start respecting fair use in their "guidelines" for fan creations, and publishing videos that demonstrated fair use but also underlined how hard it is to determine — though perhaps they would have been useful for Fox as it went after Republican presidential candidates for posting debate footage online.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2002, we took a look at how DRM for music CDs was just a plain ol' bad idea, and another at how developing nations should avoid strong copyright for (among other reasons) the sake of fair use. DVD burners had finally dropped enough in price that Hollywood was freaking out about them, while then RIAA-boss was flummoxed to lose an Oxford Debate about file sharing by being apparently surprised that file-sharers in the audience also bought more music.

Less than a month after a first report was delivered on Washington, DC police body camera use, a second one has arrived. And it seems to contradict some assertions made in the first report.The first report was put together by an extension of DC's government called the Lab@DC. It showed body camera use doing almost nothing to curtail use of force by officers. This seemed to undercut the notion body cameras can be a tool of accountability. But they never will be -- not if the agencies using them remain uninterested in punishing officers for misconduct.The Lab@DC report stated officers -- more than 2,000 of them -- weren't observed repeatedly or intentionally violating body camera activation policies.

This morning, at about the same time as I published my article criticizing Senator Portman's decision to push forward with SESTA, an amended version of the bill was released, that has only a few small changes. Most notably it appears to improve the "knowledge" standard, which was definitely the worst part of the bill. The original bill had the following standard:

The news about the DOJ trying to subpoena Twitter calls to mind an another egregious example of the government trying to unmask an anonymous speaker earlier this year. Remember when the federal government tried to compel Twitter to divulge the identity of a user who had been critical of the Trump administration? This incident was troubling enough on its face: there’s no place in a free society for a government to come after a critic of it. But largely overlooked in the worthy outrage over the bald-faced attempt to punish a dissenting voice was the government’s simultaneous attempt to prevent Twitter from telling anyone that the government was demanding this information. Because Twitter refused to comply with that demand, the affected user was able to get counsel and the world was able to know how the government was abusing its authority. As the saying goes, sunlight is the best disinfectant, and by shining a light on the government's abusive behavior it was able to be stopped.That storm may have blown over, but the general issues raised by the incident continue to affect Internet platforms – and by extension their users and their speech. A significant problem we keep having to contend with is not only what happens when the government demands information about users from platforms, but what happens when it then compels the same platforms to keep those demands a secret. These secrecy demands are often called different things and are born from separate statutory mechanisms, but they all boil down to being some form of gag over the platform’s ability to speak, with the same equally troubling implications. We've talked before about how important it is that platforms be able to protect their users' right to speak anonymously. That right is part and parcel of the First Amendment because there are many people who would not be able to speak if they were forced to reveal their identities in order to do so. Public discourse, and the benefit the public gets from it, would then suffer in the absence of their contributions. But it's one thing to say that people have the right to speak anonymously; it's another to make that right meaningful. If civil plaintiffs, or, worse, the government, can too easily force anonymous speakers to be unmasked then the right to speak anonymously will only be illusory. For it to be something speakers can depend on to enable them to speak freely there have to be effective barriers preventing that anonymity from too casually being stripped by unjust demands.One key way to prevent illegitimate unmasking demands is to fight back against them. But no one can fight back against what they are unaware of. Platforms are thus increasingly pushing back against the gags preventing them from disclosing that they have received discovery demands as a way to protect their communities of users.While each type of demand varies in its particulars (for instance a civil subpoena is different from a grand jury subpoena, which is different than an NSL, which is different from the 19 USC Section 1509 summons that was used against Twitter in the quest to discover the Trump critic), as well as the rationale for why the demanding party might have sought to preserve the secrecy around the demand with some sort of gag, all of these unmasking demands still ultimately challenge the durability of an online speaker's right to remain anonymous. Which is why rulings that preserve, or, worse, even strengthen, gag rules are so troubling because they make it all the more difficult, if not outright impossible, to protect legitimate speech from illegitimate unmasking demands.And that matters. Returning to the example about the fishing expedition to unmask a critic, while it's great that in this particular case the government quickly dropped its demand on Twitter, questions remain. Was Twitter the only platform the government went after? Perhaps, but how would we know? How would we know if this was the only speech it had chosen to investigate, or the 1509 summons the only unmasking instrument it had used to try to identify the speaker? If the other platforms it demanded information from were, quite reasonably, cowed by an accompanying demand for secrecy (the sanctions for violating such an order can be serious), we might never know the answers to these questions. The government could be continuing its attacks on its apparently no-longer-anonymous critics unabated, and speakers who depended on anonymity would unknowingly be putting themselves at risk when they continued to speak.This state of affairs is an affront to the First Amendment. The First Amendment was intended in large part to enable people to speak truth to power, but when we make it too hard for platforms to be partners in protecting that right it entrenches that power. There are a lot of ways that platforms should have the ability to be that partner, but one of them must be the basic ability to tell us when that right is under threat.

I'm not sure who Dianne Feinstein thinks she is, but she's going after Twitter users' private communications. As part of the ongoing hearings into Russian interference in the election process (specifically marketing efforts by Russian troll armies), Feinstein has asked Twitter [PDF] to hand over a bunch of information.Most of the demands target Twitter itself: documents related to ad campaigns, investigative work by Twitter to uncover bot accounts, communications between Twitter and Russian-connected entities, etc. Then there's this demand, which doesn't ask Twitter to turn over communications from Twitter, but rather users' private messages.

As you probably have heard, last night for a period of 11 minutes, Donald Trump's Twitter account looked like this:Not surprisingly, lots of people noticed quickly... and, then it came back. Soon after, Twitter admitted it was "inadvertently deactivated due to human error by a Twitter employee." Two hours later, this message was clarified to say that "done by a Twitter customer support employee... on the employee's last day."This, in turn, led a bunch of folks on Twitter to start gleefully praising this employee (whose name is not yet known, but likely will be soon). Because it's Twitter, and Twitter can get giddy over stuff like this, there were lots of jokes and people calling this employee a hero and whatnot. (Update: A new report says that it wasn't even a full-time employee, but a contractor).I take a very different view on this. Earlier this year, Cathy Gellis wrote a post here explaining why it would be a bad idea to kill Trump's Twitter account. You can read that post for details, but the larger point is that under no circumstances would such a move be viewed as anything other than a political statement. Twitter more or less admitted this a few weeks back when it made a public statement saying that it considers "newsworthiness" as a factor in determining whether a tweet violates its terms. And, by definition, the President's tweets are newsworthy.The larger question, honestly, is how the hell a customer service rep, especially one who wasn't even a full time employee, but a contractor -- on his or her last day -- had the power to simply delete the President's twitter account. You can see how things got to this point: I'm sure in the early days, just about anyone could delete someone's account on the platform. Over time, I assume that the power was limited more and more to customer service reps -- but they were still granted the power to do so if it was necessary. But it's fairly incredible that there aren't at least some controls on this -- requiring a second person's permission? Locking certain key Twitter accounts? -- that would make what this employee did impossible.And, of course, it's raising lots of other questions. Did this customer service rep have the ability to tweet as Trump? Considering how quickly the world reacts to Trump tweets, that could create serious havoc. I'm sure we'll be hearing plenty more on this soon, and Twitter will eventually share some sort of post mortem on new processes and controls that have been put in place, but the fact that this even happened in the first place is not a cause for celebration, but one for concern about how Twitter's controls and processes work.

Build your own drone or race car with the Force Flyers DIY Building Block Fly 'n Drive Drone for only $33. The 6-axis gyro, 360º stunt flips, and auto-stabilization make flying fun for any level of flyer. Its crash-resistant ABS plastic lets you get back on the road or in the air faster after crashing, and features a flight time of 10-12 minutes on one charge. The kit is compatible with major building blocks so you can let you imagination run wild building different vehicles. It's great for STEM development and fun for all ages.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 appears that Senator Rob Portman has decided to push forward with SESTA -- the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act -- a bill with problems we've discussed in great detail. Despite previous suggestions that the bill would not move forward until there were important fixes in place, it's now been announced that a committee vote will happen next week. It's possible that the bill will be amended prior to that vote, but as of right now, that's not clear. (Update: And about the time this post was published, a a manager's amendment has been pushed out. It fixes some of the most egregious problems with the bill, but leaves most of the problems intact.)In support of this renewed push, Portman has published an opinion piece at Wired that no fact checker should have allowed. It is fully of completely faulty statements, and fairly incredible ones at that. It's kind of scary that it appears that Portman may be looking to undermine some fundamental principles of how the internet works based on a bunch of false statements. Even the title is just wrong:

The boring old utility pole has long been at the heart of this country's broadband dysfunction. As it stands now, competing ISPs looking to deploy fiber need to contact each individual ISP -- and wait for them to finalize layers of paperwork and move their own gear -- before the competitor can attach fiber to the pole. Needless to say, ISPs have often abused this bureaucracy to stall competitors' arrival to market. So over the last few years Google Fiber has convinced several cities to pass "one touch make ready" utility pole reform rules that dramatically streamline this process.Under these reforms, one licensed, insured contractor (often the same company ISPs already use) is allowed to move any ISPs' gear -- provided they inform the ISP ahead of time and pay for any potential damages. The regulatory change can dramatically speed up fiber deployment, saving numerous months in project delays. That's why Google Fiber convinced cities like Nashville and Louisville to pass these one touch rules a few years ago.But Nashville and Louisville were subsequently sued by Comcast, Charter and AT&T. The ISPs' lawyers threw out every legal argument they could, including claims that the cities had exceeded their legal authority, that the reforms would dramatically increase service outages, and even that the reforms violated their first amendment rights. Of course the ISPs' real problem is that such reform speeds up the arrival of a concept regional duopolies loathe: actual, genuine competition.In this case, AT&T's gambit didn't work all that well. Back in August, a Judge killed off AT&T's lawsuit against Louisville, stating the city was well within its legal authority to manage the city's own rights of way (even though AT&T owns 40% of the poles in the city). AT&T appears to have gotten the message, as the telco told news outlets there this week they wouldn't be appealing the ruling:

Earlier this year, Canada's top court upheld a ridiculous, truly troubling ruling involving a company called Equustek Solutions. Equustek managed to get three consecutive courts to agree they had jurisdiction to force Google to block supposedly-infringing websites worldwide.It was a rare show of audacity from the usually ultra-polite country. According to the court's reasoning, the only way to prevent continued "irreparable harm" to the plaintiff was to order Google to prevent anyone, anywhere in the world from accessing the site. That the court had no jurisdiction beyond the Canadian borders was treated as irrelevant.Google responded to this insane ruling by filing a lawsuit in its own state, asking a judge to find the Canadian court's overreach unenforceable in the United States. It cited both Section 230 of the CDA and the First Amendment in support of its arguments.This could have provided for some very interesting courtroom arguments. But, alas, it appears Equustek has no interest in presenting its case anywhere it doesn't have the homefield advantage. Joe Mullin of Ars Technica has more details:

The last time we talked about Germany's Strafgesetzbuch law, specifically section 86a that prohibits the display of Nazi symbols, iconography, or historical figures with few exceptions, was when Ubisoft accidentally sent the country versions of a South Park video game chock full of swastikas. I feel much the same today about the law as I did then: I get why the law was created, but it's probably time for it to be retired. While the law does make room for Nazi symbols to be displayed for the purposes of art and education, too often those exceptions are either not actually adhered to in real-world examples, while those that might be able to fit their work within those exceptions don't bother trying, too chilled by the law that limits their speech. Coupling that along with the simple fact that German citizens who really want to see Nazi symbols don't have to work particularly hard to circumvent the law resolves the whole matter as being somewhat silly.And it produces silly results. For instance, the latest game in the Wolfenstein series got around the law with what appears to be the minimum amount of effort possible.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has let some more stash house sting convictions stand. But not without considerable discussion of the government's tactics. And not without one judge appending a long rebuke to her reluctant concurrence.Once again, the ATF has managed to secure multiple convictions predicated on nonexistent evidence. The sting, helmed by veteran ATF agent Richard Zayas, involved a made-up drug stash house "containing" at least enough drugs to trigger 10-year mandatory minimum sentences for the defendants. Zayas' sting operations always include fictitious armed stash house guards, otherwise the ATF's involvement would be unnecessary.The end result is multiple convictions. But other than a few seized weapons, nothing contributing to public safety was achieved. No actual drug dealer was targeted, nor was the sting linked with any larger ATF/DEA/FBI operation aimed at curbing inner city drug trade.Nonetheless, the Sixth Circuit Appeals Court upholds everything, rejecting multiple due process challenges from the defendants. The entire opinion [PDF] should be read just to understand the nearly-insurmountable barriers defendants face when challenging questionable government behavior -- both during the sting and during the trial.Judge Jane Stranch's concurrence clearly communicates her displeasure with ATF sting operations in general, even if it's tempered by her inability to move the dial in the appellants' favor.

A Canadian court has ruled information about law enforcement's not-all-that-secret cell tower spoofers can stay secret. An ongoing attempted murder trial has implicated the use of Stingray devices. Prosecutors have refused to turn over information about the devices to the defendants -- something that at first provoked some consternation from the presiding judge. (via Slashdot)

FCC boss Ajit Pai has been busy ignoring the public while he kills popular net neutrality rules. But he's also been working hard to weaken broadband deployment standards to obfuscate a lack of broadband competition, to gut programs that provide broadband to the poor, killing previous FCC efforts to improve cable box competition, to protect prison telco monopolies from oversight, and to make it easier for business broadband monopolies to rip off smaller competitors. All while proclaiming to be a stalwart defender of the little guy and a champion for bridging the digital divide.But Pai has also been taking heat for his pursuit of another pet project: gutting media consolidation and ownership rules solely for the benefit of Sinclair Broadcasting, which is seeking approval for its $3.9 billion bid for Tribune. In the last few months, Pai has, as promised, been "taking a weed whacker" to rules intended to protect local reporting, media competition, and opinion diversity. That has included killing an 80 year rule intended to protect local competitors and journalism from unchecked monopoly control of a market, and taking an axe to some protections but bringing back others solely to Sinclair's benefit:

While it wasn't always called "the cloud" people have been talking about and predicting the future of remote computing for the past few decades (and, sure, I know that in the early days of mainframes and terminals, that's how things worked, but I'm talking about in the modern internet era). And some argue that we've now finally reached the true age of the cloud. After all, tons of people can survive with most of their documents really stored in the cloud. Indeed, for many people, they have little use for much storage on their own computers (and, sure, I know some of you will get snooty and talk about how crazy that is, but the simple fact is that many people are not like you and don't need much in the way of local storage).But, as I've said before, and will say again, I think by letting companies like Google and Amazon control "the cloud" we've actually missed out the real possible benefit of the cloud. The version that I had always pictured separated out the storage layer from the service layer. I've made this point in the past concerning online cloud music services (which are now pretty obsolete due to streaming services) where I'd prefer the ability to store all of my (legal) MP3s in one spot, and then point a music playing service at those files. Instead, every cloud music service required you to upload local tracks to servers somewhere, and you'd have to do it all over again if you switched. This is obvious lock-in for those services, but it's a pain for end users, and diminishes the possibilities for more innovative services.The same is true in other areas as well. And I'm reminded of this due to a bug in Google Docs that hit some people earlier this week. When people went to access their docs, they were told they were locked out due to a "terms of service violation." This turned out not to be true (Google just fucked up in a way that "incorrectly flagged a small percentage of Google Docs as abusive, which caused those documents to be automatically blocked"). And, while this was a stupid mistake (that legitimately freaked out a bunch of people who rely on Google docs), it again highlights the problem.Google Docs is a fantastic and useful service. But it would be a hell of a lot better if the service layer and the storage layer were separated. In the bad old days when I used Microsoft Word, I wouldn't want that app shutting down because it thought someone wrote an "abusive" letter. Why should that even be an option in Google Docs? And why should Google run both the service and the storage part? Why can't I store the doc somewhere else, and just point Google Docs to that storage, such that I can still get the same service, but Google has no right to deny me access to the documents I make?Again, I understand the business logic behind this (lock-in!) and even some of the legal logic behind this (for example, in my music example, I'm sure that some would argue that a service playing from an accessible data store of (even legal) MP3s would infringe). But, out of all that, it feels like we've really missed out on the true promise of the cloud, in which we separate out the services from the data, and allow more and varied services to compete, without also claiming ownership and having the ability to block access to the data. This SNAFU with Google Docs only serves as another reminder of how problematic this can be.

You spend a lot of your day at your desk while your devices just continue to lose power. Keep them powered up so you won't have to think about it when you leave work with this ZeroLemon 75W Desktop Charger. It includes a USB Type-C port, 2 standard USB-A ports, and a PD/QC3.0 compatible port, and its built-in intelligent chip allows simultaneous multi-device charging at high speed. It is 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.