Techdirt

Techdirt has been covering the EU's plans to "modernize" copyright law for years now, and noted how things seem to be getting worse. Two ideas -- the so-called link tax and the upload filter -- are particularly one-sided, offering no benefits for the public, but providing the copyright industry with yet more monopolies and powers to censor. That much we knew. But two new initiatives reveal that the harmful effects are much, much broader than first thought.The first, dubbed "Save Code Share", comes from the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), and the open source organization OpenForum Europe (disclosure: I am an unpaid Fellow of the associated OpenForum Academy, but have no involvement with the new project). The two groups are concerned about the impact of Article 13 of the draft text (pdf) -- the upload filter -- on coding in Europe, as they explain in a white paper:

With the trademarking of hashtags now in full swing, it's about time some light was shone on exactly what type of trademarks are granted on them. The trademarking of hashtags isn't in and of itself perplexing, although it does cause this writer some mild annoyance. Locking up language in general is something that should be treated carefully, but doing so specifically with social media language in an ecosystem designed for proliferation and sharing is ripe for conflict. One need only look at how the Olympics treats hashtags to see this, or how big businesses will greedily "protect" the use of hashtags, no matter any actual concern about public confusion over the use of the marks. The point is, the same general problem with the practical application of trademarks is exacerbated by social media: trademarks too often aren't specific or identifying enough.Recently, an example of this has emerged on Twitter in the form of a quickly-resolved dispute between the University of California and the NFL's Chicago Bears. Cal's mascot is "the Golden Bears", you see. The Chicago Bears somewhat irritatingly staked a claim to the hashtag #GoBears, such that the Chicago Bears logo appeared every time someone used the hashtag. The University of California holds a trademark on the hashtag, however, and the school's Twitter account registered its annoyance with the Chicago team in an admittedly congenial way.

Now that Terre Bonne Parish sheriff Jerry Larpenter has had his immunity stripped by a federal court, it appears he's ready to pay up to keep the damages from mounting. Sheriff Larpenter abused a terrible law -- Louisiana's still-on-the-books-for-some-reason criminal defamation law -- to harass a critic of his. On the way to getting slapped by the court, Larpenter went judge-shopping (bringing his warrant to an off-duty judge) for someone willing to sign his unconstitutional warrant -- a judge who later found the warrant with his signature on it to be perfectly legal.The state court of appeals shot down Larpenter's warrant. The inevitable civil suit that followed found Larpenter being de-immunized in successive decisions, leaving him to actually bear some responsibility for his act of censorship.Elizabeth Nolan Brown reports Larpenter is now making nice with Jennifer and Wayne Anderson, the couple targeted by the sheriff for their criticism. The Andersons had their home raided by Larpenter's deputies, who seized every electronic device they could find, including the Andersons' childrens' laptop.

The government loves taking people's money. It likes it so much it gets pretty weird about it. Even considering all we've covered here on the subject of forfeiture, the legal theory deployed by the government in this case is astounding. From the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision [PDF]:

We've written a bunch over the past few years about the so-called Inter Partes Review (IPR) process at the US Patent Office. In short, this is a process that was implemented in the patent reform bill back in 2010 allowing people and companies to ask a special "review board" -- the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) -- at the Patent Office to review a patent to determine if it was valid. This was necessary because so many absolutely terrible patents were being granted, and then being used to shake down tons of companies and hold entire industries hostage. So, rather than fix the patent review process, Congress created an interesting work-around: at least make it easier for the Patent Office to go back and check to see if it got it right the first time.Last year, part of this process was challenged at the Supreme Court and upheld as valid. However, the whole IPR is still very much under attack. There's another big Supreme Court case on the docket right now which argues that IPR is unconstitutional (the short argument is that you can already challenge patents in court, and by taking them to an administrative board, it creates an unconstitutional taking of property without a jury). There are also some attempts at killing the IPR in Congress.While those play out, however, never underestimate the ability of sketchy lawyers to find loopholes and dive through them in ways that are clearly sticking a giant middle finger up at the law. Such is the case with the pharmaceutical company Allergan, who just "sold" some of its patents for the dry-eye drug Restasis to the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe based in upstate New York. There are currently challenges against the Restasis patents both in court and via the IPR at the PTAB -- and the PTAB has indicated that Allergan is likely to lose its patents. But Allergan has basically short circuited the process just days before the PTAB was set to hear arguments over the patent, and will now tell the PTAB it can't review these patents because of (no joke) the sovereign immunity of the Mohawk tribe.The reasoning goes back, first, to a ruling at the beginning of this year where the PTAB dismissed some reviews of patents held by the University of Florida after the University -- a part of the state of Florida -- made a claim of sovereign immunity, saying it's exempted under the 11th Amendment of the Constitution. While there are some arguments against this, the PTAB agreed. The lawyers representing the University of Florida in this case apparently saw this as an opportunity. They're the same lawyers representing Allergan in this "sale."Of course, it's a sale in name only. The only reason for the sale is to be able to avoid the IPR process. In all other ways, Allergan appears to retain control. From the NY Times article on the deal:

Still more evidence continues to be uncovered linking shady reputation management companies to fraudulent defamation lawsuits. This tactic has only recently been exposed, thanks mainly to the efforts of Eugene Volokh and Paul Alan Levy. (Pissed Consumer spotted some questionable lawsuit activity as well, shortly before the Volokh/Levy deluge.)So far, one victim of this fraudulent behavior has obtained a settlement from one of these reputation management firms. It's likely more such judgments are on the way as more details linking firms to bogus lawsuits are dug up. One judge has already passed on info to the US Attorney's office. Now, Eugene Volokh is reporting the Texas attorney general's office has filed a civil complaint against a company called Solvera that, up until recently, performed illegitimate Google takedown services for customers paying upwards of $10,000, using nothing more than bogus libel lawsuits filed by nonexistent companies against fake defendants.The civil complaint [PDF] details the bogus inner workings of the lawsuits filed by shell companies set up by Solvera. (Also, shell defendants.)

Unlike other smart home platforms or hardware, Oomi is a universal system encompassing sensors, cameras, lights, and more, all while interacting seamlessly with existing Z-Wave systems like Alexa and Philips Hue. The Oomi Home starter kit allows you to see what's happening at home from anywhere in the world, day or night. You can control your entertainment system, lighting, and much more all from the Oomi Touch—no smartphone required. It's on sale for a limited time for $599.Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

What is it with federal government officials and their weird belief that being questioned by the public -- even with dumb questions -- is a criminal offense? Does it take three stories to make a trend? Perhaps. Let's do these one at a time.

AT&T and hardware manufacturer Arris are being accused of leaving millions of broadband subscribers open to attack. A new report by security researcher Joseph Hutchins highlights how five flaws were discovered in Arris routers used by AT&T and numerous other ISPs around the world. Hutchins notes that some of the flaws may have been introduced after they were delivered to AT&T, since ISPs traditionally modify hardware for use on their network post sale. But many of the flaws were courtesy of the all-too-common tendency to ship hardware with hardcoded credentials and SSH enabled by default:

The DOJ and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have offered up their official plea for a clean reauthorization of Section 702 surveillance powers. These are due to expire at the end of the year, but so far there's been no concerted effort to subject it to greater restrictions -- at least nothing as cohesive as the opposition to Section 215 renewal that began shortly after the Snowden leaks started.Unlike Section 215 phone records collections, the Section 702 collections at least appear to be somewhat useful in harvesting communications relevant to national security efforts. But these collections should be subjected to even greater scrutiny because of what they contain: communications. While the NSA may have ended its supremely vague "about" email collection program (which harvested emails talking about targets/keywords, along with those to and from actual targets), it appears to only have done so because it couldn't make it stop harvesting US persons' communications.But none of that is mentioned in the Attorney General's letter to Congressional leaders. Instead, the request asks not only for a "clean" reauthorization, but a "forever" one as well.

The warning bells for the craft beer industry have been sounding for some time now, but the trademark disputes keep on coming. Even as trademark registrations in craft beer grow exponentially and intellectual property attorneys themselves are predicting an explosion in disputes on the horizon, the legal cases and threat letters have begun to grow. What once was an industry known for cooperative and congenial attitudes on trademark issues has devolved into corporate protectionism. But inter-industry disputes aren't the only concern, as the explosion in the craft beer industry has also invited trademark disputes from those outside of the industry.Trademark protectionists can now put another pelt on the wall, that of the Dark and Stormy Night beer made by Picaroons Traditional Ales.

If you have even a passing interest in American sports, you will likely already be aware that Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett has been in the news of late due to an incident that occurred in Las Vegas during the Mayweather v. McGregor fight. Police responded to reports of shots being fired in a casino where Bennett also happened to be and, in the chaos that ensued afterwards, officers put Bennett on the ground and cuffed him as he ran away from the shooting. For his part, Bennett claims the officer pointed his gun at him and threatened to "blow his fucking head off" and that the entire detainment was done without any reason other than his being a large black man. He was quite vocal about the incident on Twitter and during press interviews.The Las Vegas police, not surprisingly, aren't loving how Bennett is characterizing what occurred. During a press conference of their own, LVPD representatives couldn't answer as to why Bennett was detained at all during the incident, nor could they explain why the detaining officer's body camera was off during the incident. Despite these shrugs at fairly apropros questions, the LVPD did manage to fire off one of the whiniest letters to the NFL asking them to "investigate" Bennett for... saying things?

If you have even a passing interest in American sports, you will likely already be aware that Seattle Seahawks player Michael Bennett has been in the news of late due to an incident that occurred in Las Vegas during the Mayweather v. McGregor fight. Police responded to reports of shots being fired in a casino where Bennett also happened to be and, in the chaos that ensued afterwards, officers put Bennett on the ground and cuffed him as he ran away from the shooting. For his part, Bennett claims the officer pointed his gun at him and threatened to "blow his fucking head off" and that the entire detainment was done without any reason other than his being a large black man. He was quite vocal about the incident on Twitter and during press interviews.The Las Vegas police, not surprisingly, aren't loving how Bennett is characterizing what occurred. During a press conference of their own, LVPD representatives couldn't answer as to why Bennett was detained at all during the incident, nor could they explain why the detaining officer's body camera was off during the incident. Despite these shrugs at fairly apropos questions, the union representing the police officers, the Las Vegas Police Protective Association Metro, did manage to fire off one of the whiniest letters to the NFL asking them to "investigate" Bennett for... saying things?

While the 20th century was defined by mass production, since the digital revolution there has been talk about what might be the main trend of the 21st century: mass customization. Today, we're starting to see customizable mass-produced offerings pop up in a number of spaces such as apparel, and this week we discuss whether mass customization is finally approaching critical mass.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.

It seems Virginia can't catch a break when it comes to voting. Trusting vendors to provide secure electronic voting devices just isn't paying off. Two years ago, Virginia pulled a bunch of voting machines after it was discovered they were leaky, insecure devices masquerading as something American voters could trust.The security wasn't just bad in the way many machines are -- frailties that can only be sussed out by security researchers and talented criminals. No, they were bad in the way your grandparents' Google Box is: "secured" with passwords like "abcde" or "admin," along with accessible DOS prompts and multiple open ports.Time moves on but the electronic portion of Virginia's electoral system does not.

For many years now, we've been covering the sometimes odd/sometimes dopey case of the monkey selfie and the various disputes over who holds the copyright (the pretty clear answer: no one owns the copyright, because the law only applies to humans). David Slater, the photographer whose camera the monkey used, has always claimed that he holds the copyright (and has, in the past, tried to blame us at Techdirt for pointing out that the law disagrees). A few years back, PETA, the publicity-hungry animal rights group, hired big time lawyers at Irell & Manella to argue (1) the monkey holds the copyright, not Slater, (2) PETA somehow magically can stand in for the monkey in court -- and sued Slater over it. Slater and I disagree over whether he holds the copyright, but on this we actually do agree: the monkey most certainly does not hold the copyright.The district court ruled correctly that works created by monkeys are in the public domain and that PETA had no case. PETA appealed. Last month, we wrote that the case was likely to settle, because both sides were highly motivated to get it out of court. On Slater's side, he had told some reporters that the legal fight has left him broke (which bizarrely lead to a bunch of people blaming me, which still makes no sense), while PETA desperately wanted to settle because the hearing in the case made it abundantly clear that the appeals court was not buying its argument. Indeed, it appears that the judges hearing the case could barely contain laughter at the bananas argument made by PETA's lawyers.So it comes as little surprise that the parties have released a joint statement saying they've settled the case and asking the court to dismiss the appeal. Part of the agreement is that Slater says he'll donate 25% of any future proceeds from the monkey selfie pictures to organizations that protect the habitat of macaque monkeys in Indonesia, which seems like a good cause.But... there is a pretty clear problem with the proposed settlement. Not only are they asking the court to dismiss the case due to the settlement, the parties have also agreed to ask the court to vacate the district court's ruling saying that animals cannot copyright works they create. Basically, PETA and its high-priced lawyers lost really badly on a fundamental issue of copyright... and now they want to erase that precedent so they or others can try again. PETA is arguing, incredibly, that if the original ruling stands, it will unfairly bind the monkey Naruto:

As soon as it launches, we're giving away a brand new iPhone 8 — one of Apple's biggest releases ever, boasting a brand new operating system and a slew of mysterious new features. Even if you're not in the market for a new phone, the price of free should probably motivate you to enter anyway.Sign up or log in with your email to StackCommerce's Techdirt Deals Store and you'll be entered to win. Share this contest with friends and family, and you'll earn more entries. Stack does not sell your information and it's easy to unsubscribe at any time (check out their privacy policy). The full rules are available on the sweepstake's page.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, yes, by now you know all about the whole Equifax hack and how really, really terrible it is. Lots of sites have been posting various stories about what you should do about it, when the truth is you really can't do much. A lot of people are likely going to deal with an awful lot of bad stuff almost entirely because of this leak by Equifax. Not surprisingly, the FTC has weighed in with some suggestions, most of which won't actually help very much. Most of them are the standard suggestions everyone's giving -- including checking your credit reports, putting a credit freeze on your files and basically watching very closely to see if you're fucked over by whoever has access to these files.But the FTC's very last suggestion is the one I wanted to focus on today. It's basically "um, well, maybe try to file your tax returns early next year, so you beat hackers trying to do the same?"

We've noted for years now how broadband and cable providers have created a high art out of bogus, misleading fees. Such fees, ranging in name from Comcast's "broadcast TV fee" to CenturyLink's "internet cost recovery fee" -- allow these companies to falsely advertise one price, then sock consumers with a much higher rate once the bill comes due. This allows these companies to not only jack up prices while claiming the don't, but it has the added bonus of making direct price comparisons with competitors almost impossible.Comcast initially charged $1.50 when its broadcast TV fee first appeared back in 2013, but now charges upwards of $6.50 more per month in many markets -- a 333% increase in just three years. With the occasional exception, regulators and lawmakers tend to turn a blind eye to this practice as little more than pricing creativity. Comcast was however sued for the practice last year, plaintiffs claiming that this practice is not only false advertising, but is primarily designed to let the company raise rates on customers it convinced to sign long-term contracts.For its part, Comcast has spent the last few years insisting that sneaky, misleading fees are just the company's way of being "transparent" with its users:

Routine misconduct by DEA agents? The DEA could not possibly care less. An Inspector General's report released in 2015 in the aftermath of a sex-parties-and-harassment investigation showed 8 of the 14 agents investigated received bonuses and awards while still under investigation, a violation of DEA policy. None of the agents were fired or even demoted. The DEA's unwillingness to address serious misdeeds seriously made it clear DEA agents are nigh un-fireable.Even minor disciplinary actions tend to be rolled back, as the Inspector General's office reports [PDF]. An agent engaging in plenty of unrelated misconduct found himself stripped of his security clearance, but only momentarily. The list of things the agent did wrong is as impressive as it is disturbing. [h/t Brad Heath]

We've been sounding the warning bells on this for some time now, but the craft beer industry has a trademark problem. As the industry continues its explosive growth, bringing with that growth all of the benefits to the economy and to the public along with it, so too has grown the industry's use of trademarks on all of these new brands. What once was a relatively small cottage industry filled with congenial small players has morphed into very big business. Morphing with it has been that congenial attitude in the industry, with craft breweries now far more protective of their brands and far more willing to send out legal threats and engage in court battles over intellectual property than ever before. It's gotten to the point that even intellectual property attorneys are beginning to warn everyone that the lawsuits and threats are going to inevitably increase. This represents a roadblock to an otherwise thriving industry and it's only going to get worse.That's because, in the last ten years alone, trademark registrations for craft brews have doubled in number, while just this past year at least one market has seen a twenty-percent increase in registrations.

The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has handed down a decision which appears to lower the bar for probable cause. The government's evidence -- obtained via a warrantless search -- will remain unsuppressed. Here's the summary of the decision [PDF]:

In the lead up to Hurricane Irma hitting Florida over the weekend, Tesla did something kind of interesting: it gave a "free" upgrade to a bunch of Tesla drivers in Florida, extending the range of those vehicles, to make it easier for them to evacuate the state. Now, as an initial response, this may seem praiseworthy. The company did something (at no cost to car-owners) to help them evacuate from a serious danger zone. In a complete vacuum, that sounds like a good idea. But there are a variety of problems with it when put back into context.The first thing you need to understand is that while Tesla sells different version of its Model S, with different ranges, the range is actually entirely software-dependent. That is, it uses the same batteries in different cars -- it just limits how much they'll charge via software. Thus, spend more on a "nicer" model and more of the battery is used. So all that happened here was that Tesla "upgraded" these cars with an over the air update. In some ways, this feels kind of neat -- it means that a Tesla owner could "purchase" an upgrade to extend the range of the car. But it should also be somewhat terrifying.In some areas, this has lead to discussions about the possibility of hacking the software on the cheaper version to unlock the greater battery power -- and I, for one, can't wait to see the CFAA lawsuit that eventually comes out of that should it ever happen (at least some people are hacking into the Tesla's battery management system, but just to determine how much capacity is really available).But this brings us back to the same old discussion of whether or not you really own what you've bought. When a company can automagically update the physical product you bought from them, it at least raises some serious questions. Yes, in this case, it's being used for a good purpose: to hopefully make it easier for Tesla owners to get the hell out of Florida. But it works the other way too, as law professor Elizabeth Jo points out:

A year and a half ago, we wrote about how the same team of lawyers who successfully got "Happy Birthday" recognized as being in the public domain (despite decades of Warner Chappell claiming otherwise, and making boatloads of money) had set their sites on a similar fight over the copyright status of the song "We Shall Overcome." There were a lot of details in the original lawsuit that we wrote about -- all suggesting very strongly that the song "We Shall Overcome" was way older than the copyright holder claimed, and it was almost certainly in the public domain.There's been some back and forth in the case, but a new ruling on summary judgment motions effectively says key parts of the song are not under copyright. Specifically at issue is whether or not the first and fifth verse of the song are "sufficiently original" to qualify for copyright. And here, Judge Denise Cote says "nope." The verse in question is probably the part of the song you know:

No job too small. That's asset forfeiture for you. But small jobs are the safest jobs when it comes to the government keeping someone else's property. Keeping the seizures small makes it less likely they'll be challenged by those whose property was taken.The year-end totals may look impressive, but behind those totals are lots and lots of tiny cash grabs. In the cases where agencies' forfeitures have been itemized and examined (which is a rarity -- there's a ton of opacity in forfeiture reporting), the largest number of forfeitures are for the smallest amounts, usually well under $1,000.Officers take what they can because they can. A video going viral on Twitter shows a California police officer rummaging through the wallet of an unlicensed street vendor and taking the vendor's cash and debit card. A citation and a shutdown of the hot dog stand should have been enough. But it wasn't. Officer Sean Aranas decided -- with the only citation handed out during the football game -- to take the man's earnings.

The $119 Roqos Core is the first home internet security service that provides cybersecurity, parental controls, a VPN service, Dynamic DNS, and a home network. It provides protection for any IoT device on your network and has an open source platform that allows new security features to be developed often. The router features simultaneous dual WiFi 3x3 802.11 AC and 2x2 802.11, 5-port Gigabit switch, 4 2GHz cores, 2GB RAM, and 8 GB local storage. You can get real-time notifications on suspicious activities or network problems via phone or email Today's deal includes first month of cybersecurity, parental controls, dynamic DNS, and VPN services free ($17/month thereafter).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.

We've pointed out time and time again that one of the problems with setting up any rules that allow for content to be taken down online is just how widely they will be abused. This is one of the reasons why we think that CDA 230's immunity is much better than the DMCA 512 safe harbors. Under CDA 230, if a platform receives a takedown over content that is, say, defamatory, they get to decide how best to act, without a change in their own legal liability. They can take it down, or they can leave it up, but there's no greater legal risk in either decision. With the DMCA, it's different. If you, as a platform, refuse to take down the content, you then risk much greater legal liability. And, because of this, we regularly see the DMCA abused by anyone who wants to make certain content disappear -- even if it has nothing to do with copyright.Take this latest example of game developer Sean Vanaman, who has promised to issue DMCA takedown notices for YouTube star PewDiePie's (Felix Kjellberg) videos featuring Vanaman's video game, Firewatch:

So you may have noticed this already, but giant telecom conglomerates don't much like having to upgrade their networks, especially in lower ROI areas. And while that's understandable from a purely-financial perspective, this practice is creating some major, notable broadband deployment holes where poor people tend to live. With telcos specifically refusing to upgrade lagging DSL networks at any real scale, that's also creating an emboldened cable broadband monopoly in many areas. That by proxy keeps prices high, speeds low, and allows the introduction of things like bullshit usage caps and overage fees.By and large, localized efforts to do something about this generally run face-first into brick walls, thanks in large part to the almost comical stranglehold most ISPs have over state legislatures and regional telecom regulators. In many instances this culminates in ISPs not only refusing to expand their networks into under-served areas, but quite literally writing protectionist state laws to make sure nobody else can, either. This cake and eat it too mentality persists in countless states that have prioritized campaign contributions from the likes of AT&T and Comcast over the general welfare of their public constituents.Despite the broadband industry consistently whining about "burdensome regulation," the reality is there's little to nothing passing for real oversight in many of these areas, and the regulation that is written -- is often focused primarily on protecting these duopolies' uncompetitive geographical fiefdoms. In Vermont, the Vermont Public Utility Commission (VPUC) recently tried to buck this trend by including provisions in Comcast's 11 year permit (pdf) with the state requiring it to not only retain public access programming in the state, but expand "no less than" 550 miles of additional cable into under-served Vermont communities over 11 years.To be clear, deploying that much cable over more than a decade is a pittance to a company that sees $21 billion in quarterly revenues. But instead, Comcast decided to sue the state, claiming that doing this extra work violates the company's First Amendment rights:

How private are your medical records? You'd think they'd be pretty damn private, considering Congress specifically passed a law regulating the disclosure of these sensitive records. Some states feel the same way, extending even greater privacy protections to things like prescription records. Not only are medical entities prevented from passing on sensitive info without patients' consent, local law enforcement agencies aren't allowed to obtain third-party records like prescription data without a warrant.Seems pretty locked down, but as Leslie Francis and John Francis point out at the Oxford University Press blog, federal law enforcement agencies have undone both Congressional protections and state protections.

This week, we're going to go out of order again, since we've got a good discussion with our first place winner in the middle — sandwiched by two good editor's choices. On our post about friend-of-patent-trolls Judge Rodney Gilstrap crafting an incredibly broad set of conditions for having patent cases heard in East Texas, aerinai offered up our first editor's choice for insightful with some thoughts on the impact this will have:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2012, as the election drew near, we noted that both the Democrats and Republicans were in deep denial about the need for copyright reform — even as the tide seemed to be turning on bad copyright laws in some other countries. Meanwhile, the copyright takedown game was going nuts as usual, with rightsholders issuing takedowns over content that has been gone for months, and automated bots managing to take down the live-stream of the Hugo awards (for showing clips from an award-winning show) and even the official stream of the Democratic National Convention (with claims from a shockingly long list of media companies).Ten Years AgoIronically for sci-fi fans who couldn't watch the Hugos in 2012, this same week in 2007 it was a sci-fi writers group abusing the DMCA to take down content. Meanwhile, Ridley Scott gave as an interlude from Hollywood's usual complaints about technology being used for piracy (like the MPAA's new crusade against camcording in UK cinemas) to complain about small screens killing the art form. This was also the week that Apple made major updates to its iPod line including the introduction of the iPod Touch, and we noted that the excitement around the technology was itself a good argument against music industry business models.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2002, record labels were actually backing away from copy protection, although their official music download sites were still languishing in obscurity. The industry was fresh off an insane attempt to stop piracy with a lawsuit against internet backbone providers, and Duke University had just received a curious anonymous $1-million donation to fight abuse of the DMCA. This was also the week that Greece passed a somewhat-infamous anti-gaming law that, due to its vague wording, effectively banned all video games.

Okay, chances are you've already heard about the massive security breach at Equifax, that leaked a ton of important data on potentially 143 million people in the US (basically the majority of adults in America). If you haven't, you need to pay more attention to the news. I won't get into all the details of what happened here, but I want to follow a few threads:First, Equifax had been sitting on the knowledge of this breach since July. There is some dispute over how quickly companies should disclose breaches, and it makes sense to give companies at least some time to get everything in order before going public. But here it's not clear what Equifax actually did. The company has seemed almost comically unprepared for this announcement in so many ways. Most incredibly, the site that Equifax set up for checking if your data has been compromised (short answer: yeah, it almost certainly was...) was on a consumer hosting plan using a free shared SSL certificate, a funky domain and an anonymous Whois record. And, incredibly, it asked you for most of your Social Security Number. In short, it's set up in a nearly identical manner to a typical phishing site. Oh and it left open the fact that the site had only one user -- "Edelman" -- the name of a big PR firm.Not surprisingly, it didn't take long for various security tools to warn that the site wasn't safe.

RESOLVED: this nation's intelligence oversight is indisputably useless. It's about 99% joke and 1% Ron Wyden dog-whistle questions that go unanswered for months or years. Committees on both sides of the legislature are composed mostly of surveillance cheerleaders and flak catchers profoundly uninterested in performing actual oversight. Reform efforts tend to take place despite the intelligence committees, rather than because of them. Every so often, positive changes are made for purely partisan reasons.Super-friendly "oversight" committees aren't helping hold our nation's multiple intelligence agencies accountable. But it goes deeper than lawmaking fanboys/girls holding prominent positions in intelligence committees. The desire to limit accountability traces back further than the front-mouths lobbing softballs to IC leaders at Congressional hearings. As Tim Johnson and Ben Wieder report for McClatchy News, the intelligence community has been stocking committees with home teamers for years.

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has reaffirmed the fact that students (and other people on school campuses) don't have location-based Constitutional rights. A pat-frisk of a nonstudent by a police officer on a school's campus resulted in the warrantless search of his backpack and the discovery of marijuana, a scale, and a handgun. All of these items may as well have never existed at all, thanks to the officer having zero reasonable suspicion to perform the frisk, much less the probable cause to search the backpack.

If the ongoing battle between copyright infringers and copyright holders could be described in any simple term, that term would have to be whac-a-mole. Since the early days of piracy on the internet, the copyright industries have used their legal mallets to smack down any site or service whose head managed to rise out of obscurity. Napster was pushed into irrelevance, as were other similar apps. Then websites that hosted infringing files were slammed. At present, we are in the midst of a crackdown on torrent sites, with the copyright industries blaming them for widespread infringement.However, those who are dedicated to sharing content illicitly are indeed dedicated. And so the game will continue into avenues of piracy that are fairly creative.

Because ageism is allegedly rampant in Hollywood, California legislators have decided to address the problem head on not at all. Instead of enforcing on-the-books laws against employment discrimination, the legislature -- backed by the Screen Actors Guild -- has decided some of the First Amendment has to go. It has crafted a new law to fight ageism in Hollywood studios… by targeting a popular movie database. In California, A + B = WTF.The law -- currently blocked by an injunction -- forbids third-party sites with paid subscribers from publishing certain facts about actors and actresses. The only fact at issue is their age. And, despite lawmakers pretending the stupid, unconstitutional law targets a variety of websites, it's really only having an effect on one: IMDb.This failure of a law stems from a failure of a lawsuit brought by actress Junie Hoang, who blamed her lack of starring roles on IMDb publishing her real age. She wanted $1 million in damages, apparently expecting IMDb to subsidize her next 500 years of denied acting opportunities. (Discovery during the suit revealed Hoang made less than $2000/year from acting.)The Fail Train rolls on with the Screen Actors Guild offering its full-throated approval of First Amendment limitations, as Elizabeth Nolan Brown reports.

Get a detailed introduction to DevOps with the $40 Complete DevOps & Deployment Technologies Bundle. The 7 courses will cover Vagrant, an open-source product lets you build and maintain portable, cost-effective virtual development environments for developing your project, Chef, a collection of configuration management tools, Ansible, an IT automation program, and Jenkins, an automation server that can help with continuous integrating. You'll also learn about Docker, GitHub and NGINX.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.

Oh, Charles Harder. Fresh off losing the lawsuit he filed against us on behalf of Shiva Ayyadurai, lawyer Charles Harder is right back at it. The NY Post was the first to report that Harder has filed a lawsuit in New York state court against Gizmodo Media Group and two of its employees: Anna Merlan and Emma Carmichael. Gizmodo Media Group is basically what used to be Gawker. After Harder sued Gawker into bankruptcy and Univision bought many of Gawker's assets, it put them into a new entity called GMG.Obviously, we have some opinions concerning Harder and his increasingly long list of lawsuits against media properties -- so feel free to take our analysis with however many grains of salt are necessary -- but this appears to be a pretty clear SLAPP suit designed to create more chilling effects on free speech. There are many, many reasons why this lawsuit is almost certainly a total and complete dud. But, that doesn't mean it won't be costly and annoying for GMG (even with Univision's help) and the two named individual defendants. The lawsuit is a response to an article on the site Jezebel entitled Inside Superstar Machine, Which Ex-Members Say Is a Cult Preying on New York’s Creative Women. The lawsuit is filed on behalf of Greg Scherick and his company "International Scherick" -- which is also called "Superstar Machine."You can read the article, written by Merlan, which details claims by multiple young women about how they were a part of an organization of sorts, run by Scherick, that was part motivational group and part... something else. Multiple women are quoted using the word "cult." Here's one clip, quoting a woman named "Rose":

Back in 2015, the FCC raised the standard definition of broadband from 4 Mbps down, 1 Mbps up, to an arguably-more-modern 25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up. Of course the uncompetitive broadband industry (and the lawmakers who adore them) subsequently threw a collective hissy fit about the change, because they realized a higher bar would only highlight their failure to deliver next-generation broadband to vast swaths of America.And highlight it did: by this new metric, two-thirds of the country lack access to real broadband from more than one ISP. We've explored repeatedly how this is due to a refusal by the nation's telcos to upgrade lagging DSL connections, leaving cable companies with a growing broadband monopoly across huge swaths of the country. With this reduction in competition comes a growing apathy to customer service, as well as the ability to impose new unnecessary and arbitrary usage caps (read: price hikes) without any competitive reaction by the broken market.Normally, this is where regulators would step in with policies aimed at shoring up this lack of competition. Under the Telecommunications Act, the FCC is required by law to track broadband deployment and competition and -- if things aren't up to snuff -- "take immediate action to accelerate deployment of such capability by removing barriers to infrastructure investment and by promoting competition in the telecommunications market." But if you fiddle with how precisely broadband penetration and competition is measured, you can avoid having to admit there's a problem, or do anything about it.With industry-ally Ajit Pai now in charge of the FCC, the telecom industry has been lobbying to weaken the standard definition of broadband to help mask the sector's shortcomings. As if on demand, a new FCC proposal would lower the definition of broadband by declaring a region covered if it has access to wireless data connections at speeds of 10 Mbps. The goal: lower the goalposts for the express benefit of lazy telecom duopolies. Duopolies that talk a good game about "closing the digital divide," but refuse to upgrade huge swaths of their networks (espcially the parts where disadvantaged and poor people live) -- and lobby for protectionist state laws ensuring nobody else can, either.Of course the FCC isn't framing their decision as the industry-coddling myopia it is, instead declaring this a "modernization" of FCC policy, in some instances fooling media outlets into thinking this is about "reclassying wireless broadband" for some ambiguously noble policy purpose. But a handful of Senators this week criticized the FCC's new plan, highlighting (correctly) how lowering the broadband deployment bar to ankle height is a disservice to those waiting for, or trying to deploy, better broadband:

At long last, Uganda's anti-porn "machine" has arrived. As The Next Web notes, the country's government placed an order for a porn-blocking machine last year, following on the heels of yet another anti-porn law. A company in South Korea has helpfully cobbled this together and presumably the Ugandan government will be deploying it shortly.How does it work? No one knows for sure, possibly not even those in the government who spent $88,000 for it. TechZim has a theory.

Utah and Idaho -- two states with more in common than a border -- have been enforcing First Amendment-trampling liquor laws preventing adults viewing certain films from enjoying adult beverages while doing so. I'm not talking about porn theaters, although the use of the word "adult" certainly leads the mind in that direction. No, I'm talking about regular, old-fashioned R-rated films no one really has much objection to adults viewing, even those who often object to adults viewing films rated X and up.In a clear waste of public funds and law enforcement resources, officers are sneaking off to R-rated films at movie houses serving alcohol in hopes of catching them engaged in double-devilry. The movie houses have been fighting back, noting (in lawsuit form) the enforced laws are unconstitutional and inconsistently enforced. Theaters in Utah and Idaho could expect visits from undercover prudes for films like "50 Shades of Grey" and, apparently, "Deadpool."Theaters in both states sued their respective state alcohol boards. Brewvies -- the theater suing the state of Utah -- has been handed a win. Elizabeth Nolan Brown reports on the federal court's decision in the delightfully-titled article "First Amendment Protects Cinema's Right to Show Unicorn Masturbation Scene While Serving Alcohol, Says Judge."

Good news, citizens. The police are here to tell you who the real journalists are.

We've long talked about the problems that come along with government mandating ISPs to act as copyright police by blocking so-called "pirate" websites. The issues with these attempts are many, ranging from their muted impact on piracy to concerns over just how a website is deemed to be a "pirate" website to the inevitable collateral damage sustained by non-infringing sites. With the last of those, you can pretty much set your watch to the stories of innocent sites being caught up in this sort of censorship. Still, the breadth of this particular problem likely escapes many people.To get a handle on the sort of scope we're talking about, we can take a look at Russia. In response to international accusations of the government being lax on matters of copyright infringement, Russia enacted legislation in 2013 that tasked ISPs and hosting providers with blocking pirate websites. It's been nearly half a decade, so let's check in and see what sort of impact that legislation has had.

We've long talked about the problems that come along with government mandating ISPs to act as copyright police by blocking so-called "pirate" websites. The issues with these attempts are many, ranging from their muted impact on piracy to concerns over just how a website is deemed to be a "pirate" website to the inevitable collateral damage sustained by non-infringing sites. With the last of those, you can pretty much set your watch to the stories of innocent sites being caught up in this sort of censorship. Still, the breadth of this particular problem likely escapes many people.To get a handle on the sort of scope we're talking about, we can take a look at Russia. In response to international accusations of the government being lax on matters of copyright infringement, Russia enacted legislation in 2013 that tasked ISPs and hosting providers with blocking pirate websites. It's been nearly half a decade, so let's check in and see what sort of impact that legislation has had.

You might recall that back in 2015, Lenovo was busted for installing a nasty bit of snoopware made by a company named Superfish on select models of the company's Thinkpad laptops. Superfish's VisualDiscovery wasn't just annoying adware however; it was so poorly designed that it effectively made all of Lenovo's customers vulnerable to HTTPS man-in-the-middle attacks that were relatively trivial for an attacker to carry out. More specifically, it installed a self-signed root HTTPS certificate that could intercept encrypted traffic for every website a user visits -- one that falsely represented itself as the official website certificate.That's hugely problematic for what should be obvious reasons, but Lenovo doubled down on dumb by issuing a statement initially claiming it didn't see what all the fuss was about and that it was just trying to "improve the shopping experience":

When faced with First Amendment activity they don't care for, some legislators attempt to gerrymander this right until it only contains the speech they like. This can take the form of cyberbullying bills, hate speech legislation, and, lately, anti-protesting laws.The problem with these efforts is they routinely run afoul of the Constitution. Some do better than others trying to stay within the confines of what can actually be controlled by the government, but in most cases, the proposed laws are badly-written rush jobs attempting to paper over the current issue du jour.Another anti-protesting law is in the works, prompted by oil pipeline demonstrations both in North Dakota and, closer to home, in the district of the state rep introducing the bill, Scott Martin of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

What's better than 16GB of storage in your pocket? 16GB of AES 256-bit encrypted storage in your pocket! Transfer files with ease, organize yourself better, and extend your computer's storage capacity all with an extra measure of security. It's on sale in the Techdirt Deals Store for $59.99.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.

We've written a few times about Judge Rodney Gilstrap, an East Texas federal district court judge, whom patent trolls seem to love. For well over a decade, we've discussed how patent trolls absolutely love to file cases in East Texas, and in the past few years, Gilstrap has basically been the judge for patent cases in East Texas. Incredibly, in 2016, Gilstrap alone handled 20% of all patent cases in the country (that was true in earlier years as well). Not 20% of the patent cases filed in East Texas -- but in the whole country. And if you read that link, you see that Gilstrap seems (a) proud of this and (b) insists that people are upset about all the patent cases going to East Texas because they don't like small-town America -- and not because the court makes it that much easier for trolls to shake down everyone.Now, as you may recall, the Supreme Court, just a few months ago, appeared to slam the door shut on patent troll venue shopping with its ruling in the TC Heartland case. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that patent law is pretty clear, that you need to sue where the supposed infringer "resides." For years, the courts had ignored this -- despite it being plainly stated in the law -- and said that you could file a lawsuit wherever a company did any business (and with many companies, that means anywhere at all).Many folks suggested that the SCOTUS TC Heartland ruling should put a real damper on patent trolls running to Judge Gilstrap and East Texas.However, it appears that Gilstrap may have other ideas. Ryley Bennett, from the Washington Legal Foundation, recently wrote up a depressing article about how Gilstrap appears to have come up with a new "test" for patent venue that more or less wipes out the Supreme Court's ruling. The case was a patent infringement case where Raytheon sued Cray in East Texas. Cray argued for a change of venue, which Gilstrap denied (just a month before the SCOTUS ruling on TC Heartland), pointing to a sale Cray had made in East Texas. So after TC Heartland, Cray asked Gilstrap to reconsider with that new precedent. And here, Gilstrap single-handedly created a new "test" about what is meant by "resides" in, making it possible to keep many cases in East Texas. The key here was that Cray had a single sales person who worked from home in the Eastern District of Texas. And, to Gilstrap, that's enough to establish "residence."Bennett explains why this is so problematic:

Large ISPs continue to try their best to pretend they adore net neutrality, and have nothing to do with their own perpetual efforts to crush FCC rules designed to keep the internet relatively open and competitive. Verizon recently released an utterly-comical video that blatantly lied about its role in killing the FCC's consumer protections. And companies like Comcast have penned blog post after blog post falsely claiming that the entire world somehow has it all wrong, and companies with a generation of documented anti-competitive behavior are really just misunderstood sweethearts being falsely maligned by fringe radicals.You just know Comcast is telling the truth, since it has proudly, repeatedly declared as much in all caps and pretty colors::Bullshit doesn't magically become reality with a change of font. Enter top Comcast lobbyist (the company apparently hates it when you call him that) David Cohen, who recently penned yet another blog post whining incessantly about how the fifteen-year net neutrality debate has become a lot like Groundhog Day, with the same players being forced to make the same arguments over and over again, ad infinitum:

Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County, Florida, spent most of Wednesday morning letting America know what an awful person he is. With Hurricane Irma bearing down on Florida, Judd helpfully suggested sex offenders or those with outstanding warrants would be better off lashing themselves to a nearby tree rather than seeking shelter.