Techdirt

While it's true that prisoners enjoy fewer rights than Americans who've never been convicted of a crime, their rights are by no means nonexistent. Except in some cases... where bits and pieces of protected speech vanish into the gaps between established prison guidelines and case law directly addressing the matter.That's an admittedly unclear summation of the appeals court decision finding a federal prisoner's rights weren't violated when he was removed from a halfway house and placed in solitary confinement in retaliation for publishing an article about his prison experience.

The New York Times is taking a look at the FBI's battle against terrorism (not the first time it's done this) -- namely, its near-total reliance on sting operations to round up would-be terrorists. As the Times' Eric Lichtblau points out, stings used to be a last-resort tactic. Now, it's standard operating procedure. Two out of every three terrorism prosecutions begin with undercover agents nudging citizens and immigrants toward acts of violence and "material support." In some cases, the FBI agents are doing all the work themselves.The FBI, of course, maintains that these terrorists would have acted on their own without the agency's intercession -- even though it seems to be placing a rather heavy finger on the scale.

In an era where storage is insanely cheap and the warning to schedule regular backups has been ringing in the ears of computer users for more than four decades, there's seemingly no explanation for the following:

In addition to the $21 billion made annually by cable set top box rental fees, cable companies make untold billions from monetizing the user viewing data these boxes help collect. That captive revenue alone is the driving force behind the pay TV sectors histrionic opposition to the FCC's plan to open the sector up to third-party hardware competition. Consumer viewing and behavioral data is an immense cash cow, one the cable industry has occasionally threatened to take even further -- with patents on tech that lets the cable box literally watch or listen in on American living rooms.

When the negotiations for the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the EU and Canada were concluded in September 2014, the text was finally released after years of secrecy. At the time, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives put together what remains the best overall analysis of the main text's 1598 pages, in a series of studies collectively called "Making Sense of CETA." The same organization has now published a set of analyses looking at key aspects of TPP, entitled "What’s the big deal? Understanding the Trans-Pacific Partnership".They are all worth looking at, but Techdirt readers will probably be particularly interested in one called "Foreign investor protections in the Trans-Pacific Partnership." It's by Gus Van Harten, a professor at Osgoode Hall Law School of York University in Toronto, Canada, and a well-known commentator on trade law and policy. The first part of his analysis provides a good summary of the world of corporate sovereignty, or investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) as it is more formally known. The later section looks at some new research that provides additional insight into just how bad corporate sovereignty is for those of us who are not insanely rich.For example, Van Harten quotes some recent work showing that 90% of ISDS fines against countries went to corporations with over $1 billion in annual revenue or to individuals with over $100 million in net wealth. Similarly, the success rate among the largest multinationals -- those with turnovers of at least $10 billion -- was 71% in the 48 cases they initiated, compared with a success rate for everyone else of 42%. So any claim that ISDS is equally useful to all companies, including small and medium-sized businesses, is not borne out by the facts.Van Harten also mentions some interesting figures for the financial winners and losers across all known corporate sovereignty cases. The largest corporations ended up with gains of around $6 billion; the thriving ISDS legal industry took home $2 billion; very wealthy individuals received around $1 billion; and large companies picked up another $500 million. As for the countries that were sued by these groups, their losses totaled some $10 billion. That's an important reminder that nations cannot win ISDS cases: the best they can ever hope for is not to lose. And they often do lose, as the high cumulative fines indicate.Another fascinating insight comes from looking at the percentage of foreign-owned assets (that is, inward foreign direct investment) in the US economy that are covered by ISDS in trade and investment agreements. Currently, it is only around 10%, which is probably why corporate sovereignty is not a big deal for the US public today. If TPP is ratified, another 10% of foreign investments will be covered. But if the TAFTA/TTIP deal with the EU goes through, it would add another 60% to the total -- a huge jump. That would mean that TPP and TTIP together would make nearly all foreign investments in the US subject to corporate sovereignty.Van Harten highlights another key aspect of TPP that has not received much attention. He points out that TPP goes beyond the older North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which is between the US, Canada and Mexico, but does not solve its serious problems, despite claims to the contrary:

It's been a while since anyone has proposed and executed a plan as 'out there' as going to the moon in less than a decade. Sure, we have computers that can beat humans at Go, and we're on the cusp of using CRISPR for some amazing genetic modifications. However, we haven't really been serious about getting people off the planet -- and onto another planet -- for quite some time. Here are just a few moonshot-like projects for getting stuff into space, and perhaps making baby steps toward becoming a Type II civilization.

Whenver we discuss a particularly egregious case of trademark abuse, usually centered around the trademarking of some insanely common word or phrase, there's always at least one instance of "that joke" in the comments. You know the joke I'm talking about: well, I'll just trademark X and sue everyone, where X=super-common word or phrase. For example: "I'll just trademark "trademark" and sue anyone who uses a trademark!", or, "I'll just trademark "the" and sue everyone who uses it!" These jokes play on the common problem of generic terms being granted trademarks, but of course they are examples so ridiculous that it couldn't happen for those specific words and terms. Still, to our lovely commenters, we say, "Thank you."Or not, because it appears Citigroup has a trademark on "THANKYOU" and is currently using it to sue AT&T for using "Thanks".

Copyright is supposed to be a limited-use protection for creative works. The "limited" part went away with endless term extensions and auto-copyright for any creation attached to a "fixed medium." These days, copyright is the magical cure-all that doesn't actually cure anything. It's a weapon to be wielded dishonestly and inelegantly against the ignorant, in hopes of limiting speech to only what IP abusers like.A lawsuit over a negative review hosted at Ripoff Report began with an all-too-familiar tactic: an attempt to route around Section 230 protections by claiming copyright infringement. The chain of events leading up to the bogus copyright claim is all sorts of problematic.

Another injunction request has been filed in response to a Phil Mocek public records request pertaining to Seattle's power utility. This time, Mocek and MuckRock (through which Mocek's requests have been routed) are not named as defendants. It's only the city of Seattle and its public utility (Seattle City Light) being named as defendants, but Mocek's public records request is specified in the federal court filing [PDF]. (h/t Mike Scarcella)This time, the plaintiff isn't a multinational corporation. It's the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The nexus for the FBI's attempt to block further disclosures to Mocek (and other requesters like local new station KIRO) is its remora-esque relationship with Seattle's public utility. After a long paragraph utilizing terms like "tradecraft," "concealments," and "advanced electronic surveillance," we finally get to the real reason the FBI wants the court to keep the city of Seattle from handing out any more public utility documents to requesters.

There are some in Congress who apparently have no problem deceiving both their colleagues and the American public in the pursuit of making Americans less safe and putting our country, economy and infrastructure at risk. This time, it's House Intelligence Committee chair Rep. Devin Nunes, along with Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, who chairs the NSA subcommittee. They've been sending around a letter that blatantly misrepresents a proposal designed to better protect Americans' privacy and security.

Two years ago, we wrote about a ridiculous situation in which the morality police who work for Google's AdSense team threatened to kill our account because they saw that their ads were being displayed on this page, which has a story (from 2012) about a publicity rights claim involving a music video using footage of a porn star without her permission. The story was quite clearly about the intellectual property issues at play, but the AdSense team insisted that since the still image displayed from the embedded video showed a (clothed) woman pole dancing, it violated their policies on "adult or mature content." We protested and AdSense rejected our protest, insisting that the still image of the pole dancing violated their policies. Never mind the fact that the same exact video was hosted on Google-owned YouTube where it had Google's ads enabled...

If you are always looking for new games to play, check out the $25 deal on a 2 years VIP subscription to OnePlay Unlimited PC & Android Games. They have over 2,000 titles with more added every month. You can access the games you choose on your Android devices or PC. Once you download a game, you can play whenever/wherever you want with no need for internet access. You will also receive a 10% off credit for any game you decide to purchase.

It's an understandable reaction to tragedy. When faced with the unthinkable -- like the death of a loved one in a terrorist attack -- people tend to make bad decisions. We saw this recently when the widow of a man killed in an ISIS raid sued Twitter for "providing material support to terrorists." Twitter's involvement was nothing more than the unavoidable outcome of providing a social media platform: it was (and is) used by terrorist organizations to communicate and recruit new members.That doesn't mean Twitter somehow supports terrorism, though. Like most social media platforms, Twitter proactively works to eliminate accounts linked with terrorists. But there's only so much that can be done when all that's needed to create an account is an email address.As difficult as it may be to accept, platforms like Twitter, Facebook, etc. are not the problem. Like any, mostly-open social platform, they can be used by terrible people to do terrible things. But they are not responsible for individual users' actions, nor should they be expected to assume this responsibility.Another terrorist attack and another death has prompted a similar lawsuit [PDF] from the father of Nohemi Gonzalez, who was killed in the Paris terrorist attacks. The lawsuit contains a number of allegations, but every single one can be countered by Section 230. Reynaldo Gonzalez claims that Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube all provide "support" for terrorism by both refusing to take terrorist-related content/accounts down and not proactively policing their platforms for terrorist-linked users.The lawsuit contains several quotes from pundits, terrorism experts, and government officials about ISIS's successful use of social media platforms. What it doesn't contain, however, is anyone offering support for the lawsuit's position: that social media platforms should be held directly responsible for terrorist attacks. But that's the sole purpose of this lawsuit: to make the platforms pay for a death they had nothing to do with.There are calls from government and law enforcement officials for these platforms to "do more" contained in the lawsuit as well. But if there's anything we'll never run out of, it's government officials calling for "x non-government entity" to "do more" in response to [insert latest tragedy here].As was pointed out earlier, Section 230 immunizes the defendants against lawsuits of this sort. And the fact that there's no direct connection between the terrorist attack and Twitter/Facebook/YouTube's actions means there's no way for Gonzalez's father to seek damages from these defendants for a terrorist attack carried out on foreign soil, as Twitter pointed out the last time it was sued for "providing material support for terrorism."Whether or not Section 230's protections will hold up remains to be seen. This case has been filed in the Ninth Circuit, which just recently handed down a decision opening up service providers to new levels of liability if they fail to warn users about other, possibly more dangerous users. This isn't exactly the best fit for the bad en banc decision, but with the circuit leaning that direction thanks to recent precedent, lower courts may be more willing to reinterpret Section 230 in ways that will make the internet worse.

Earlier this week we noted that Peter Thiel's legal vendetta against Gawker went way beyond just the Hulk Hogan case. In fact, it appeared that Thiel not only paid the lawyer, Charles Harder, to set up his own legal practice (without revealing to Holder who was really paying the bills), but basically sought to help pay the bills of lots of folks pushing legal claims on Gawker, no matter how tenuous. That included a questionable labor dispute (where even the plaintiff said he felt used by the lawyer) and a weird defamation case in which the court easily tossed out the defamation claim against Gawker, but the plaintiff, Meanith Huon, settled the claim against Above The Law (where his argument was marginally stronger), but appealed the ruling against Gawker, telling the court that he wasn't concerned about the appeal because he was "getting support from Hulk Hogan's lawyers in California." The deeper you look at the Huon case, the more ridiculous it seems. The Forbes report (adblocker blocker warning) noted at one point:

We've been talking for weeks about how the cable industry has dramatically ramped up lobbying in an attempt to kill the FCC's plan to bring some competition to the set top box market. The cable industry opposes the idea for two reasons: competition would dramatically reduce the $21 billion the sector makes each year off of rental fees, but the flood of new, cheaper boxes would also likely direct users -- historically locked behind cable's walled gardens -- to a huge variety of streaming video alternatives.

In the last year, Techdirt has posted a couple of stories about court decisions that underline the fact that the EU system of copyright levies is an unworkable mess. A new ruling from the EU's highest court, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has confirmed this once more, but for different reasons. The levies are supposed to compensate copyright holders for an alleged "loss" arising from copies made for personal use. The case concerns Spain's implementation of the system, which pays money directly from the state's budget. That's obviously much simpler than the complicated approach that involves collecting a levy placed on storage devices that varies according to their size -- a system used in other European countries. However, the CJEU has found a problem with Spain's method (pdf):

There are a surprising number of really dumb trademark disputes involving professional sports, what with athletes jumping at the chance to trademark their nicknames and phrases, and that really dumb 12th Man thing. But even this cynical writer was taken aback at the news that Dr. Pepper had stepped in to block the Denver Broncos from trademarking the term "Orange Crush", the nickname for the team's defensive squad spanning nearly half a century.

Talking in front of a big audience can be daunting, and there are a few organizations that try to help people get better at this skill (eg. Toastmasters, the Association of Speakers Clubs, POWERtalk, etc). But a great speech doesn't necessarily have to be delivered in front of a large, live audience, especially now that Youtube/Facebook can reach millions of people (sometimes unintentionally). Practice helps, but good video editing can be pretty important, too.

As we've noted over the past decade or so, the Supreme Court has been smacking down the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) over and over and over again on issues related to patent law. And on Monday, the Supreme Court did it once again -- but this time in a way that actually might not be good.

We've written plenty of times about ridiculous European plans to create a so-called "snippet tax" which is more officially referred to as "ancillary rights" (and is really just about creating a tax on Google). The basic concept is that some old school newspapers are so lazy and have so failed to adapt to the internet -- and so want to blame Google for their own failures -- that they want to tax any aggregator (e.g., Google) that links to their works with a snippet, that doesn't pay for the privilege of sending those publishers traffic. As you may remember, Germany has been pushing for such a thing for many, many years, and Austria has been exploring it as well. But perhaps the most attention grabbing move was the one in Spain, which not only included a snippet tax, but made it mandatory. That is, even if you wanted Google News to link to you for free, you couldn't get that. In response, Google took the nuclear option and shut down Google News in Spain. A study showed that this law has actually done much to harm Spanish publishers, but the EU pushes on, ridiculously.

Both surveillance and the digitization of money are heavily-discussed topics, but the intersection between the two often goes overlooked. Historically, credit agencies have been trailblazers in the world of surveillance, and today we face the fact that the government can use payment providers and other financial tools as a means of enforcing its wishes. On this week's episode, we're joined by lawyer and writer Sarah Jeong, who recently wrote a four-part series on the subject, to discuss the past and future of credit, money, surveillance and the way they work together.Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

I've seen plenty of nonfiction books that add some amount of content in the process from the original hard cover release to the eventual paperback release. But apparently Hillary Clinton went the other direction and conveniently excised all of the stuff about her support of the TPP. It's no secret that, while facing a considerable challenge from Bernie Sanders in the primary contest, Clinton's views of the TPP flip flopped from supporting it to being against it. She did try to explain away the flip flop by saying that it was about the details, but still, if you're going to actually change your position, you should own it. Instead, it looks like Clinton and her campaign are simply trying to rewrite history. The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) first noticed a series of big changes in the paperback edition of Clinton's book, including excising the support of the TPP -- such as two full pages about a conference in El Salvador where she spoke in favor of the agreement.

Java is one of the most commonly used programming language in app development, and considered one of the best learning languages for first time coders. Regardless of your coding experience, however, this Ultimate Java Bundle is sure to fortify your Java ability. For a special price of $69, you'll receive access to 14 lectures and 117 hours of content covering jQuery, Java Hibernate, JCreator, and more.

The script for what to do following a tragedy like the one in Orlando over the weekend is now quite clear: politicians want to appear "serious" about the issue, and thus they say stuff to appease people, even if what they say makes no sense. There was a lot of senseless rhetoric going around, of course, and we'll leave the usual debates about issues we don't cover on Techdirt to lots of other sites. But an issue we do cover is surveillance and bogus ideas like "watch lists" where a mere accusation leads to basic rights being taken away. And, unfortunately, it appears that both major Presidential candidates are advocating for greater surveillance and denial of civil liberties as a response to someone shooting up a nightclub and killing dozens of people.

There was a fair bit of coverage on Monday of the news that the Donald Trump campaign had removed the press credentials from the Washington Post because the campaign was upset with the Washington Post's coverage of the campaign. While it got a lot of attention, it was quickly pointed out that Trump has revoked or barred at least six other news outlets from receiving press passes, including Politico, the Huffington Post, the National Review, Buzzfeed and the Daily Beast. This issue is being discussed in lots of media circles. But what interested me much more was buried deeper in the full two paragraph statement that the Trump campaign later released. It included a weird and basically confused attack on Jeff Bezos, that again raises some serious questions about how Trump may use the Presidency to "settle scores."

After months of anticipation the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has upheld the FCC's Open Internet Order, an indisputably-massive win for net neutrality advocates. The full court ruling (pdf) supports the FCC's arguments across the board, including the FCC's decision to classify internet providers as common carriers under Title II of the Communications Act. That's not only big for net neutrality, but it solidifies the FCC's authority as it looks to move forward on other pro-consumer initiatives such as the exploration of some relatively basic new privacy protections for broadband users.

As part of the conditions attached to Charter's $79 billion acquisition of Time Warner Cable and Bright House Networks, the FCC imposed a requirement that Charter expand broadband service to another two million locations, one million of which must already be served by an ISP delivering speeds of 25 Mbps or greater. Unfortunately these kinds of conditions historically don't mean much; merger broadband expansion promises are almost always volunteered by the ISPs themselves, who already planned the expansion regardless of their merger plans.

There's no universal law enforcement "best practices" for searches and seizures, but simply respecting the Fourth Amendment would seem to be a good base guideline. However, that baseline is rarely used. Far too often, searches and seizures seem to be officers seeing what they can get away with -- and expecting the legal system to assist in applying "good faith" to unconstitutional searches after the fact.Ethan Moore landed at the Dillingham, Alaska airport, where he was met by two police officers. According to the officers, informants claimed Moore was transporting marijuana. They seized his luggage and took it to the local police station while they sought a search warrant. (via FourthAmendment.com)This effort failed.

Techdirt has been writing about investor-state-dispute settlement (ISDS), aka corporate sovereignty, for more than three years now. During that time, we've published well over a hundred articles on the topic. Increasing numbers of people have become aware of the threat that ISDS represents to democracy because of the privileged access it grants companies to a parallel legal system. Now, it seems, it's beginning to enter the political mainstream around the world.A couple of weeks ago, the leader of the UK's Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, promised to reject TAFTA/TTIP if he were in power, and to vote against it if he were in opposition. One reason for that, he said, was his concerns over:

Cars have changed a lot over the past hundred years, and sometimes new cars don't quite look so great. It'd be nice to see some classic cars get modern technology in them, but it ain't simple or inexpensive. Check out a few of these classic cars that might get a modern makeover.

I've spoken to a few patent attorneys who have fought against patent trolls who have admitted to me that, at times, it's quite tempting to give up and join the other side, since patent trolling is fairly easy and incredibly lucrative. You just have to sell your soul and give up the idea that you're doing anything productive or good in the world, and instead become a pure bottom feeder. Someone who did exactly that is apparently Ira Blumberg, who is now speaking out about his experiences working on "the dark side" of patent trolling. Blumberg didn't end up going to one of those tiny patent trolls, but rather left a job at Intel to go work for Rambus, a company not everyone considers to be a patent troll, but which certainly has a history of being an aggressive patent litigant. From Rambus, Blumberg then joined the world's largest patent troll, Intellectual Ventures. He eventually left IV and is now at Lenovo. So he's been actively on both sides of the patent troll situation -- as an active participant in suing operating companies while working for companies that did nothing but license, and at companies that are relentlessly pursued by patent trolls.

There ought to just be a rule that if you're even threatening to sue someone for "tortious interference" or "racketeering" that you should recognize that your claims are probably bogus and you should probably take a deep breath and think again. I've been quite clear that I have serious problems with Peter Thiel's aggressive campaign to bankrupt Gawker by funding a variety of (mostly specious) lawsuits, but I don't think the answer is to hit back with a similarly ridiculous lawsuit. However, Forbes (warning: adblocker blockers in play) is reporting that Gawker's lawyers are exploring a potential lawsuit against Thiel for tortious interference and racketeering:

Just as we're learning of law enforcement's bold new plan to take travelers' prepaid debit cards down to a $0 balance without ever leaving the highway, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals comes along [PDF] to remind us that swiping (not as in "taking") a credit card to determine its legitimacy is not a search under the Fourth Amendment. (via Ars Technica)The court notes a couple of obvious things about the search that isn't. First, it can't be a physical search because swiping the card does nothing more than (if it's legit) return the same information that's printed on the front of the card.

At this point, I've written a bunch of stories about Peter Thiel and his (largely successful) plans to bring down Gawker with lawsuits. I've made it clear why I think this is a bad thing -- and I've learned that many Techdirt readers disagree with me on that (though I appear to have won a few people over to my point of view after a bunch of discussions on this). Part of the issue, I believe, is that there are a few separate things at stake here, all of which get conflated and lumped together when it's important to look at them separately. There are questions about privacy violations, about the role and protections of the press, about the validity of financing lawsuits and about the way in which the judicial system works. I may try to unpack all of these in a separate post, but I did want to focus on one aspect that I find troubling that often gets dropped from the debate: and it's that this was not about financing one lawsuit against Gawker, but about finding any way to bring the company down.

As we've noted a few times, there's really only two ways the telecom sector can successfully destroy U.S. net neutrality rules. Broadband providers could prevail on part or all of their multi-headed lawsuit against the FCC, a decision on which is expected any day now. Or the rules could be dismantled by the next President, who could repopulate the FCC with the usual assortment of revolving-door sector sycophants, reverting the agency back to its more consistent, historical role as a dumbly nodding enabler of broadband sector dysfunction.

Stop wasting time agonizing over the right font, color scheme or theme of your presentation with PowerPoint or Keynote by Slidevana. You gain access to over 150 templates ranging from simple lists, charts and tables, to complex business layouts such as timelines, architectures, sales funnels and common frameworks. They have a minimalist and information oriented design and are fully customizable. This package is on special offer in the Techdirt Deals Store for only $49.

What's up, Hollywood TV people? Hey, could you do everyone a favor and maybe stop being complete assholes to your biggest fans -- and especially completely abusing copyright law to harass and bully those people? Almost exactly a month ago we wrote about HBO abusing the DMCA process to go after people who were predicting what would happen in Game of Thrones, accusing them of violating copyright law in accurately predicting what would happen in the future. As we noted, that's not at all how copyright law works, but apparently AMC took a look at what HBO was doing and said "hey, let's do that too."

Back in mid-April, it was discovered that Canadian law enforcement (along with Dutch authorities) had the ability to intercept and decrypt BlackBerry messages. This level of access suggested the company had turned over its encryption key to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. BlackBerry has only one encryption key for most customers -- which it maintains control of. Enterprise users, however, can set their own key, which cuts BlackBerry out of the loop completely.BlackBerry CEO John Chen -- despite publicly criticizing Apple for locking law enforcement out of its phone with default encryption -- refused to provide specifics on this apparent breach of his customers' trust. Instead, he offered a non-denial denial, stating that BlackBerry stood by its "lawful access principles."The matter was left unsettled… until now.

It's no surprise that traditional newspaper publishing is a struggling business. That's been the case for a long time, leading to a variety of silly proposals to try to prop up their failing businesses. There's been talk of changing copyright law to ban linking to or paraphrasing newspaper articles online. There's been a lot of focus on somehow harming search engines, as if they're the problem that newspapers face. There have been proposals to create a special version of the hot news doctrine to stop search engines from linking to stories. And, of course, over in the EU there's been a years-long push to "tax" links, which was so broad in Spain that Google News shut down in that country. That law, designed to protect newspapers, actually harmed them.

One of the biggest victories on the patent front was when the US Supreme Court finally ruled that naturally-occurring DNA cannot be patented. The company involved in this case, Myriad Genetics, didn't give up at this point, but tried to claim that despite this ruling, its patents on genetic testing were still valid. Fortunately, the courts disagreed, and struck down those patents too.However, as we noted at the time, there's another issue that remains unresolved, which concerns the huge database of DNA that Myriad Genetics has built up over years of sequencing the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes that have variants linked to cancer. Because of Myriad's unwillingness to provide that important data to the people whose DNA was sequenced, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has decided to take action:

This week, both our top comments on the insightful side came in response to the story of police utterly destroying a house while in pursuit of a shoplifter. One anonymous commenter won first place by summing up the fallout of these kinds of incidents:

Five Years AgoThis week in 2011, we were still looking at the previous week's hearings on pre-1972 sound recordings, where the RIAA was staunchly supporting the past extensions of copyright law while insisting that reducing copyright law would be unconstitutional, and leading us to ask would it really be so bad if The Beatles were public domain? This was all happening at the same time as the Golan case, which led us to underline how damaging it is to take works out of the public domain as well. Sadly, we also saw yet another loss for appropriation art in the courts, this time focused on a Run DMC painting.Apple was launching its new Music Match service, with all the copyright questions it implied, but rightsholders couldn't seem to agree on how they felt about it — and alongside its competitors, it also highlighted the point that fragmenting the cloud is missing the point.Ten Years AgoThis week in 2006, the US government was pressuring other countries over foreign music sites for no obvious reason other than direct marching orders from the entertainment industry. This pressure, and the exportation of policy, was poised to stymie innovation globally just like the DMCA did at home. At least there were rumblings of more reasonable views on copyright coming from politicians in the UK and a former RIAA boss who came to her senses a little too late. Meanwhile, the copyright industries were lobbying for a pernicious legal change that would require licenses even for incidental copies such as cached files. But what the industry excelled at most was invoking the Streisand Effect on sites like AllOfMp3.Fifteen Years AgoThis week in 2001, we noted a trend towards centralization on the web, with fifty percent of online time being spent on four websites (AOL, Yahoo, Microsoft, and Napster). The dot-com bubble blame game was still going on and occasionally getting ugly, with violence and lawsuits. MIT had some interesting thoughts on how technology impacts linguistics, and we took an early look at how the very concept of copyright has been corrupted. Also, the Catholic Church made a digital decision: online confessions were declared not to be an option.Finally, I think it's fair to say we were right to question Business Week's assertion that Apple "should not get back into the handheld market".Thirty-Two Years AgoIt's one of the most famous and successful games of all time, and in some people's estimation it's the quintessential realization of what a "game" truly is. On June 6th, 1984, Tetris was first released.

This week, we've got some new instruments that marry high-tech design and construction with simplicity of use and classic musical devices.Data DUOThe DataDUO is an interesting take on a synthesizer: it's designed to be accessible and fun for kids, and to be played by two people at once, especially as a collaborative creation tool for a parent and child. One side of the device is a basic dual-oscillator synthesizer with some simple cutoff and envelope controls, and the other is a circular sequencer with a pentatonic keyboard. The result is that it's very easy to create pleasing, harmonious melodies since almost any combination of notes you can generate will sound good — and it creates a back-and-forth between two users, with one controlling the melody that gets played and the other controlling the character of the synthetic sounds themselves. It probably won't be finding its way into many professional audio workflows, but it looks like a lot of fun to play with, and definitely serves as a great way to introduce kids to the basics of synthesizers.CrowminiusFor the more serious synth aficionado, the Crowminius offers an experience akin to one of the all-time classics: the Minimoog. It's a tightly designed fully analog synthesizer that packs into a compact case, and offers a great array of tools: three oscillators with six waveforms to choose from, robust modulation and control options, a white/pink/red noise generator (that can itself also serve as a modulator), and a distinct filter and amplifier. The whole thing is MIDI compatible and can also be controlled with old-school voltage signals, and it's perfect for synth modders and circuit benders as it's constructed entirely out of standard electronic components so it can be easily tweaked and expanded by those with the knowhow (not to mention repaired).3DvariusNot every modern, high-tech instrument has to be a synthesizer: the 3Dvarius is a stylish electric violin with a fully 3D-printed body. The design is modelled after the iconic and unmatched Stradivarius, but at a glance it looks like something out of a sci-fi movie prop box. The body is printed as a single, solid piece that has been carefully tweaked for maximum usability and sound transmission, and it also employs an extremely high-quality sound sensor so that it doesn't need a preamp like most electric violins — meaning its sound fidelity is as faithful as possible, with no additional noise and no distortion of the sounds truly coming out of the strings.

A little over two years ago, when the Commerce Department officially announced plans to "relinquish control" over ICANN's IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority) we tried to explain why people should stop freaking out. There were a bunch of people up in arms, claiming that the US government was "giving away the internet." That was, and still is, complete hogwash. There are two important things to understand in this. First, the Commerce Department's "oversight" over ICANN and IANA is already basically non-existent. It was always more on paper than in reality, as the Commerce Department, rightly, took a totally hands off approach. Second, there has been a big effort by foreign governments, mainly Russia and China, to take control over the internet, and strip it from ICANN, and putting it in the ITU, a confusing mess of an organization that's a part of the UN, but heavily controlled by governments without input from actual technologists or public interest groups.

Lots of people are talking about the fact that President Obama went on the Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon on Thursday night to "slow jam the news" and play up a bunch of his accomplishments while stumping for the TPP agreement. If you haven't seen it yet, it's here:Here's the key part on TPP:

The old -- Garbage In, Garbage Out -- GIGO principle originated during the early days of computing, but it may be even more applicable today. With the explosion of data available that can be collected, there's a temptation to assume that analyses and meta-analyses can make sense of all that data and produce incredible insights. However, we should probably have some skepticism before we jump into the deep end of data and expect miraculous results.

The shoes keep dropping for Team Prenda (now basically down to just Paul Hansmeier and John Steele). As it appears that the FBI is getting close to bringing a criminal action against the two, it's big appeal in the 9th Circuit has fallen flat on its face. This was the appeal of Judge Otis Wright's blistering opinion, slamming Team Prenda for all sorts of dishonest and sketchy actions, passing on their info to law enforcement (possibly kicking off the FBI investigation) and issuing $81,319.72 in legal fees and sanctions for the games they played with the court, involving copyright trolling, lying about who actually ran the "company" that was suing (Ingenuity 13) and otherwise general lying to the court.

New documents obtained by Privacy International as a result of its ongoing litigation over GCHQ bulk surveillance shows (yet again) there's really no such thing as "oversight" when it comes to spying. Owen Bowcott of The Guardian highlights conversations between GCHQ and its supposed oversight, in which the former talks the latter out of applying more restrictive guidelines from updated laws to its massive data intake. (Unfortunately, Bowcott discusses the documents but does not link to them, and I have been unable to locate these at Privacy International's website. Found 'em.)

Back in April, we were among the first to write about an absolutely horrible bill in the California Assembly, giving various government entities not just the ability, but strong encouragement to copyright and trademark whatever they could. As we noted, this was a very confused and poorly thought out kneejerk reaction to a weird dispute involving Yosemite National Park and its former concession vendor, which had trademarked a variety of famous names at Yosemite, and then tried to sell them back to the park after losing its contract. That was a crazy situation, but the proper response is not granting bad trademarks, not suddenly encouraging the government to copyright and trademark all the things. As a simple example of why this was such a bad idea, it was easy to point to the City of Inglewood which tried to sue a critic for posting videos (plus commentary) of city council meetings. The lack of copyright in those videos helped get that case tossed.

No matter what you think of Gawker, this is unfortunate news. The company has officially filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and begun the process of auctioning off its assets. Chapter 11 is an attempt to restructure debts (which include -- mostly -- the ~$130 million owed to Hulk Hogan after venture capitalist Peter Thiel funded Hogan's questionable lawsuit against Gawker). You can read the bankruptcy petition, but this is the main thing you need to know:Yeah, that's the beginning of the list of their 20 largest creditors and it starts with Hogan's "disputed" $130 million... and second place is some lawyers for $115k. So we're talking a pretty big difference from the number 1 creditor to the number 2 creditor. Of course, as with many Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings, this is more about process than substance. The filing potentially lets Gawker stop the process on some other things and explore the various alternatives, including a fairly likely sale to another player. It doesn't mean that the company is shutting down. Update: Apparently the plan is for Ziff Davis to buy Gawker, though others could potentially get into the bidding.