Crowds of students are graduating (or have just graduated) from college, and they might be a little nervous about how they're going to pay off their student loans. Student debt can be difficult to pay off, so some folks are trying to avoid it completely in a few novel ways. Here are a bunch of examples of students getting financially creative with their tuition bills. In 2011, Richard Linder got a college degree from Excelsior College for about $3,000 -- without attending any classes in person. Excelsior doesn't require graduating students to have taken any of its own courses, so Linder transferred credits (many of them free) from a variety of online classes. [url] Ken Ilgunas went to grad school at Duke and lived frugally in his van because he didn't want to get into debt again after paying off his undergrad loans. Ilgunas showered in the school's gym facilities, bummed electricity and internet from the libraries, and wrote a book (Walden on Wheels) about his lifestyle. [url] Jonathan Hood paid for his graduate education at Auburn University with a TON of mail-in rebate offers. Buying stuff, redeeming the rebates and then eBaying the stuff... it takes a lot of time, but he wrote some automation software to help him keep track of all of it (and he'll likely be able to sell that someday, too). [url] If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Reader aster points us to a tested.com video in which Adam Savage talks about copyright issues. I've seen Savage mention on Twitter in the past that he's a closet copyright geek who is very interested in copyright policy, and the conversation is definitely interesting, focusing on the high profile cease and desist letter that Fox sent over Jayne hats. The frustrating thing to me, in watching this, is that the conversation jumps back and forth between copyright and trademark without clarification. In fact, they're almost entirely talking about trademark, while saying they're talking about copyright. Frustratingly, they suggest that you have to enforce copyright to keep it, which is simply not true. What they mean is that for trademark -- not copyright -- you have to make some effort to prevent confusion or your mark becoming generic if you want to keep that mark (though this has nothing to do with copyright). You can see the segment below, though the main discussion starts up around the 7:30 mark: Still, Savage does make some really good points about fair use and the over-obsession some companies have with "control" even if it's not in their best interest. On the point of "control," he notes: There's this construct within large corporations, which is 'we control our brand!' And the moment anyone does anything unauthorized with it, we need to shut that down. Because brand control is paramount. To counter this, he uses the example of Lucasfilm which has generally been supportive of fan-art and fan creations, saying that they really only get involved when significant profits are being made. Of course, that's not entirely true. We've seen a few cases where Lucasfilm and its lawyers go a little overboard with threats, but the general point makes sense. To me the lesson is that you can't ever leave the interpretation of fair use to the corporations. Oddly, the host of the show says that it's too late for that, though that's completely wrong, too. Companies don't get to define fair use. It's still in the law and determined by courts. It may not be clear enough, but it's certainly not determined by the copyright (or trademark) holders. The host also (again, oddly) claims that fair use is mostly based on a court case from 1982 (which one?!?) and that people fear to test it. While it is true that there is some fear over bringing fair use to the courts (it's expensive and still arbitrary), there have been an awful lot of fair use cases that have gone through the courts in recent years including some key victories in recent cases that have stood strongly in favor of fair use. But then Savage makes the key point: which is that companies need to realize that fans doing stuff in support of their brand can be a really good thing: The other thing is to make a qualifiable assessment of what the best business practices for them are. In so many corporations you end up with this battle between the PR department -- who really does understand how to reach out to the fans and put everyone under a nice umbrella -- and the legal department which wants nothing to do with them... and is somehow anti-the fans.... So wake up legal departments. We know that you guys work hard and are smart people. But you need to understand a little bit more about this before you send these nastygrams. He also compares the whole thing to the Streisand Effect, and suggests that he's going to go on Etsy to buy an "illegal" Jayne hat.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

I've said many times before that I'm not a member of any political party, nor a fan of partisanship in general, and that means most political parties are a ridiculous concept to me, because they're more focused on "beating the other guy" than doing what's right. This often becomes quite clear when power shifts from one party to the other, and people who used to complain about too much power in the executive suddenly want more power for "their guy" or vice versa. The latest example of this on display can be seen in the partisan response to the DOJ spying on AP reporters. On the Republican side, politicians are reasonably up in arms about this, but they seem to ignore that when "their guy" was in the Oval Office, they were very much in favor of having the DOJ sift through reporters' emails. On the Democratic side, you have groups like Media Matters, ridiculously destroying its own credibility by coming out with talking points about how the DOJ did the right thing in spying on reporters. Basically, it's all about "defend your guy / attack the other guy" no matter what the situation is. This obviously isn't true across the board -- there certainly have been some party members "crossing lines" to express horror at this kind of surveillance. Frankly, this kind of partisanship is part of why so few people trust Congress. It seems like a pretty clear case of what's good and right, and spying on journalists' communications is generally considered not right. A principled stance would be to oppose that, no matter which party is in power. When positions are staked out clearly based on partisanship, the public loses whatever little trust it has that the government has its best interests in mind.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

You may recall that years ago Anheuser-Busch applied for a trademark on the number 312, having bought out Goose Island Brewery, who had a beer by that name. The catch is that 312 is the area code for most of Chicago, where Goose Island was based, and that seems like a sort of funny thing to trademark. But, strange as that might seem, at least AB didn't then go around suing the pants off of anyone who used any further permutation of that number. In what's a first for me, Brig C. Mccoy shows me an instance where one brewery with a trademark on a single digit has sued another brewery over a completely different digit. A lawsuit filed May 16 in U.S. District Court charged that West Sixth began selling beer, ale and brewpub services in 2012 using color, trademarks and designs "that closely resemble and are confusingly similar" to the designs used by Magic Hat for several years. And if you look at the side-by-side comparison picture, you can see exactly what they mean. After all, Magic Hat #9's logo is maroon, yellow and orange, with a trippy stylized number 9 and a star. The offending logo from West Sixth's amber ale is brown, tan and silver, with a non-stylized number 6 merged with a circle and a star. In other words, they're almost nothing freaking alike in any way. The only basis for the suit appears to be that 6s and 9s are kinda similar (as in opposite of one another) and there is some incorporation of a circle and a star somewhere. And that, friends, is a shitty basis for a trademark suit. Seriously, look at the picture and tell me if you could possibly confuse the two. If you say yes, there's a good chance you recently had a lobotomy. West Sixth appears to agree. "They're claiming that we intentionally copied their logo, and that has caused them "irreparable harm," enough that they're asking for not only damages but also all our profits up until this point (little do they know that well, as a startup company, there wasn't any, oops!)" West Sixth logos were created by a professional design firm in Lexington called Cricket Press that has "a long history of fantastic and creative logo designs. ... Our logo contains neither a '#' nor a '9.'" The lack of a # is actually kind of key. As West Sixth points out on its own website, the trademark in question includes the "#" sign, so the fact that their beer doesn't have it is pretty damning by itself. But, even beyond that, the focus on different numbers is just ridiculous. Look, within the confines of a beer can or bottle, there's only so much you can do with a logo. That said, here's a fun experiment you can do at home (assuming you're of legal drinking age). Find someone who has never tried either of the Magic Hat or West Sixth beers in question. Sit that person down at a table with a case of both beers in front of them. Ask them if they are under any illusions that the two brews are distinctly different because of the logo. When they say, "Of course not, you idiot, and why did you kidnap me from the Stop & Go?!?", ask them to slam one of each beers. Rinse, repeat. Exactly how many double-slammed-beers do you think this person would have to go through before they can't tell the difference between a 6 and a 9?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

We just wrote about how major Hollywood studios had included links to the freely available, Creative Commons-licensed documentary, TPB AFK, in a bunch of bogus DMCA notices to Google, meaning that perfectly legitimate links were likely being removed. The director of that film, Simon Klose, has now responded with an open letter in the form of a video, where he notes that this is a clear violation of his free speech. He points out that there are basically two possibilities. First, that these studios are purposely trying to censor a film about The Pirate Bay, which highlights the civil liberties questions raised by the studios legal pursuit of the founders of the site, and second, that their technology for finding infringing content absolutely sucks. He points out that neither of these situations is a good one. The first one sounds crazy, but, as he notes, not quite as crazy as some of the things that were revealed in the film, such as Warner Bros. hiring the lead investigator in the case while the investigation was still ongoing. But even if it was an accident, that doesn't change the fact that his legitimate content was being blocked from Google, and he considers it a free speech issue.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

I've always liked the state of Vermont -- but mainly because it was a nice place to visit. But, now the state appears to be declaring war on patent trolls. A new anti-patent trolling law has been quietly enacted, H.299, which targets patent trolls. Or, as it says "bad faith assertions of patent infringement." It does this by amending the state's consumer protection laws, to give tools to judges to recognize when patent litigation is done in bad faith (i.e., for trolling, rather than legitimate reasons). Eric Goldman summarizes the law this way: Vermont’s law (H.299, to be codified at 9 V.S.A. § 4195-4199) is entitled “Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringements.” However, it doesn’t define “bad faith patent assertion.” Instead, it enumerates factors to help judges distinguish legitimate from illegitimate patent assertions. Factors that suggest a bad faith patent assertion include not identifying the patent(s)-at-issue, the patent owner, and exactly how the recipient’s behavior violates the patent; demanding too quick a response or too much money; and making deceptive or meritless assertions. Factors that suggest a legitimate patent assertion include commercializing the patented invention; being either the original inventor (i.e., not having bought the patent for assertion purposes) or an educational institution; and having successfully enforced the patent in court. The law would allow those threatened by trolls to sue back and seek damages, even if no lawsuit has been filed. In other words, it helps those who are being shaken down and don't want to settle. That's a nice feature, but there are some reasons to be skeptical. It also allows the state Attorney General to go after patent trolls. While the law may scare of some patent trolls, I think Eric Goldman is right that a state-based solution is neither a good idea for this, nor is it probably legal. Patent law is a federal law, and federal preemption likely means that state laws that impact patents aren't allowed. This tries to hide it as a consumer protection law, which is an interesting strategy, but I could easily see this law being tossed out. Of course, even before the law was officially on the books, it looks like Vermont's Attorney General has already sued a patent troll under existing consumer protection laws (raising questions as to why the new law is necessary). In this case, the troll is one we've written about a few times. Remember the series of rotating shell companies that had claimed that businesses who had a networked scanner need to pay $1,000 per employee? Yeah, that one. The Vermont Attorney General claims that many of the statements made in the threat letters sent out by the rotating set of shell companies include "deceptive statements" and "deceptive practices" that violate consumer protection laws: Defendant engaged in unfair trade practices in commerce in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. § 2453(a) including: a. Stating that litigation would be brought against the recipients, when Defendant was neither prepared nor likely to bring litigation; b. Using legal counsel to imply that Defendant had performed a sufficient pre-suit investigation, including investigation into the target business and their potentially infringing activities, that would be required to justify filing a lawsuit; c. Targeting small businesses that were unlikely to have the resources to fight patent-litigation, or even to pay patent counsel; d. Sending letters that threatened patent-infringement litigation with no independent evidence that the recipients were infringing its patents; e. Shifting the entire burden of the pre-suit investigation onto the small businesses that received the letters; f. Propounding burdensome information demands on any business that claimed not to infringe the patents; and g. Using shell corporations in order to hide the true owners of the patents, avoid liability, and encourage quick settlements. Defendants engaged in deceptive trade practices in commerce in violation of the Vermont Consumer Protection Act, 9 V.S.A. §2453(a), by making deceptive statements in the threatening letters which would likely lead consumers to believe the following: a. Defendant would sue the target business if they did not respond within two weeks; b. Defendant would sue the target business if they did not pay money; c. Defendant had a reasonable basis for identifying the target businesses as infringing its patents; d. Subsidiary Shell LLCs were exclusive licencees able to enforce the patents; e. Target companies were within the sending Shell LLC's alleged area of exclusivity; f. Defendant's licensing program had received a positive response from the business community; g. Many or most businesses were interested in promptly purchasing a license from Defendant; h. Based on prior licensing agreements, the fair price of a license was between $900 and $1200 per employee; i. Target businesses were receiving a third letter, which refers to two prior letters, when in many cases recipients had received no prior letters. The lawsuit also claims that lawyer Jay Mac Rust is really the person who owns the patents via the company MPHJ. As you may recall, last month we wrote about Mac Rust after Joe Mullin at Ars Technica interviewed him in connection with the case. At the time, Mac Rust claimed that he was just one lawyer working for the owner of the patent, but who handled the "irate" recipients. So it's interesting to see the claim that he's really the guy behind MPHJ. As we've noted, there's long been an assumption that the use of shell companies is often done to hide the fact that it's the patent lawyers themselves who own the patents being used. The use of consumer protection law in response to patents is an interesting strategy. I'm skeptical as to how well it will actually work in court, but there's no denying that many of the claims made in threat letters are, in fact, untrue and could be deemed deceptive (this kind of thing might work against copyright trolls as well). No matter what, this is going to be a key case to follow.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Remember Jacques Nazaire? He's the local counsel for Prenda in a case in Georgia who was trying desperately to get the judge there to ignore Judge Wright's order in California, which lays out how Prenda's lawsuits are highly questionable, and likely against the law. He was so desperate that he said the judge should ignore the ruling in California because California recognizes gay marriage, among other differences, despite that having nothing to do with anything related to the actual case (which covers federal copyright laws, rather than state laws, and which was filed in the case to provide additional background, rather than as any sort of binding ruling). Well, it appears that Nazaire seems to believe that if he just keeps telling the court crazier and crazier things, perhaps it will ignore Judge Wright's ruling. The latest filing tries, once again, to give the judge in Georgia a reason to ignore Judge Wright's ruling, but again it doesn't make much sense. The filing is rambling and somewhat wacky, seemingly trying to argue that, even though Prenda and AF Holdings are implicated in both cases, they're completely and totally unrelated. He also seems to argue that these filings are just designed to rack up higher billing fees. Note, for example, the slightly paranoid use of capital letters: That motion was NOT written by the undersigned; nevertheless the defense has filed it in THIS docket apparently for two reasons. 1) to bill for the same and 2) to give THIS Court the impression that either the undersigned or a friend of his drafted and filed the same. But where it gets really wacky is when Nazaire just starts tossing in totally random claims about hackers: Why would the defendant in this case file a copy of a motion (ECF No. 31, Defendant’s Exhibit B) from the California case and into THIS docket when that motion has nothing to do with this case? The undersigned does not know the answer to that question. However, it must be noted that defendants (not the one herein) in these types of cases, typically employ various crafty and intimidating schemes against prosecutors and plaintiff’s attorneys. A newspaper article mentioning other types of intimidation is attached hereto as Plaintiff’s Exhibit A. What is Exhibit A, you ask? Why it's a random story about hackers claiming to be a part of Anonymous hacking into Paypal. What does that have to do with anything? The answer is nothing. Here's what I find most incredible about Nazaire's line of reasoning. It is basically "please ignore this other case where the same companies that I'm working for have been called out for fraud on the court, because that's totally unrelated, even thought they're the same companies" while at the same time saying "we can't trust anything the defense says because, hackers! And, as proof, here's a random totally unrelated story about hackers." He goes on to suggest that these hackers are after him, because some moron sent him a stupid email. Furthermore the undersigned has been personally harassed by these types of defendants (not the defendant in this instant case nor the individuals listed in Exhibit A) because of THIS case alone. (Please see Plaintiff’s Exhibit B attached hereto). Exhibit B is a silly email from someone using the email address "evilpiratemonkey@gmail.com" saying: You are about it get justifiably screwed by the justice system. It's nice to see. You aren't very smart, are you? Of course, this is a stupid email by whoever sent it, but it's hard to see how that's necessarily "harassment," nor does it show that the person who sent that email is one of "these types of defendants." It's just a stupid email from someone mocking Nazaire (the email address should have been a giveaway on that front). Either way, if I'm the judge in this case, each of these filings only makes me more interested in whatever must be in Judge Wright's order...Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

If you're a government with something to hide, there are plenty of shady ways to handle Freedom of Information Act requests. You can make sure your organization is legally allowed to carry guns and simply refuse, like the NYPD. You can also make a big deal about how requests are only honored for in-state residents, as if that were the spirit of the legislation. Or, if you're as big as the federal government, you can play a sort of bureaucratic hackey-sack game with the request for years before releasing the most non-useful information possible. The problem with all of these methods, however, is that it makes those using them look petty, but it doesn't really cement their position in the corrupt jackasses category that I believe all government agencies secretly want to obtain. Which is why we'll go to the Chicago city government, since they're the obvious experts in the matter. Here, Rahm Emanuel's administration has taken responding to FOIA requests to a whole new level, not only providing nothing to such requests, but then answering questions from the Attorney General with non-responses indicating they might just have proactively destroyed the documents being requested. This story begins with our vaunted public school system, the CPS. Glenn Krell wanted to get his hands on what research had been done when CPS put in a longer school day without bothering to give schools any resources to actually do anything with the extra time. Krell figured CPS had done research on the longer school day because, like every parent in the system, he'd received a letter from Jean-Claude Brizard, then the CEO, claiming that "our elementary school students are receiving 22 percent less instruction time than their peers across the country." So he sent CPS a FOIA request asking for "the reports, statistics, comprehensive city-by-city analysis and other documents that back up the statement by Mr. Brizard." CPS responded that "the district does not maintain any documents responsive to your request." Got that? CPS cites a statistic justifying the longer school day, Krell asks for the basis of that statistic, and CPS said there is no document for that. In internet terms, Krell asked for a citation and CPS was unable to provide one. In addition, Krell asked for information on how the city decided to achieve what it calls "selective enforcement tiers", by which high-performing schools are made available to lower-income families as a method for integration. This was another matter about which CPS had indicated its offices were just overflowing with research. He knew CPS had lots of information on this matter because he'd read about it in the Tribune. In that article, CPS officials boasted about how they'd left no stone unturned in their effort to make the selection process as fair and objective as possible. They said the process considers data such as home-ownership rates in the students' census tracts and the share of homes where English isn't the primary language. The response to that request? CPS claimed there too it had no documents to turn over. But why? Had Brizard and CPS simply made the statistics and research claims up? To find out, Krell appealed to AG Lisa Madigan, which is exactly what the law indicates you're supposed to do if you get a fishy response to an FOIA request. Madigan's office dutifully asked CPS if such documents had never existed, or if they'd simply been destroyed. CPS responded that they had never maintained those records and they do not exist. The result of that non-answer was for Madigan's office to declare the matter closed. And that's a problem, because CPS didn't actually answer the AG's question. They do not answer whether or not the documents ever existed at all, only that they never maintained them and they don't exist currently. One way to achieve that answer is for the research to never have actually been done, which would make CPS liars on multiple items it had addressed to parents and the press. Another way is for those documents to have been proactively destroyed instead of maintained, quite possibly so that they'd never have to be revealed from an FOIA request. Either way, that's crappy government. Add to that Madigan's shirking of her responsibility and it's difficult to take Emmanuel seriously when he claims his administration is "the most open, accountable, and transparent government Chicago has ever seen." Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Does DRM stop (or even slow down) piracy? This question's hardly hypothetical. It's been answered with a resounding "no" all over the internet. Of course, it's been argued that DRM was never about piracy prevention, but instead was a vehicle for content owners to control the technology in the hands of the end users. If so, the answer isn't much different. It may provide a sense of control, but those who want to enjoy their purchased content on devices outside the confines of the imposed restrictions will easily find a workaround or two simply by doing a small bit of searching. Whatever DRM's stated purpose is, there's only one thing it does extremely well: inconvenience paying customers. Acetrax, a video-on-demand service that serves millions of customers across Europe, is closing on June 21st. Unlike other service closures, Acetrax is at least providing a sort of "exit strategy" for purchasers, but it's one filled with busywork and limitations. [h/t to Techdirt reader techflaws for sending this in.] After [the June 21st shutdown], owners of Windows PCs can download their films. Mac users can forget it, as can anyone hoping to re-download HD films. Even on Windows, it's standard definition only from that point. Movies that users have previously downloaded will cease to play from that date, so re-downloading films is mandatory if you want to continue to be able to watch them. Re-downloaded films will be tied solely to the machine on which they're first played. Because they use Microsoft's Windows Media Player DRM, the films can't be transferred to any platform that doesn't support the copy-protection technology. Acetrax has provided a FAQ that details everything purchasers can and can't do with their purchased movies. As stated above, purchased movies are standard def only and are tied to a single device running Windows Media Player. Purchasers will also need to set aside a bit of time to validate their already-purchased movies (and hope they're not rubbing up against a providers' data cap). From the Acetrax FAQ: If you're watching on a laptop or PC (not including Mac), movies you've bought in standard definition (SD) are available to download directly from Acetrax.com. Just go to ‘My Movies' and click on the download icon. Once the download is finished, you'll need to have the latest version of Windows Media Player installed in order to watch it. Make sure you have the necessary rights on your computer and at least 2GB of hard-disk drive free on your PC or laptop so you have sufficient space to store the movie. Once the movie has successfully downloaded, you will need to play the movie for at least 5 minutes for us to validate the movie licence on your computer. This sort of time-killer is only going to make former Acetrax customers more hesitant to purchase digital downloads from online services and, obviously, those who have spent the most money will be wasting the most time re-downloading and re-verifying movies they've previously purchased. On a more positive note, Acetrax isn't limiting its offer to apologies and DRM to-do lists. Purchasers of HD movies are entitled to refunds, along with customers carrying unused credit on their accounts. (Caveat: refunds limited to those with PayPal or ClickandBuy accounts -- another unnecessary limitation, but at least it's the same as the options allowed for purchasing and renting.) While Acetrax is handling this shutdown better than others have in the same situation, the decision to lace its offerings with DRM causes the greatest headache for those purchasing the most. If Acetrax had decided to go DRM-free (not likely, considering the amount of major Hollywood films it carried), this shutdown would have been painless for its paying users. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

We've had plenty of stories of dumb criminals being caught in surprising ways thanks to new technology. Particularly common are the criminals who confess via the internet. However, this next one is a new one: a Florida man named Scott Simon just happened to butt dial 911 at the very moment he was discussing plans to kill someone -- plans he followed through on moments later. It did not take long for the police to put two and two together and arrest Simon -- though, they're still looking for others who were with him. Of all the possible places that the phone could have accidentally dialed, it seems rather convenient that 911 was what it ended up on. Those "smartphones" really can be smart sometimes.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

So, a lot of people are talking about Kim Dotcom's latest gambit, which was to point out that he holds a patent (US 6,078,908 and apparently others in 12 other countries as well) that covers the basics of two-factor authentication, with a priority date of April of 1997. While interesting, he goes on to point out that he's never sued over the patent because "I believe in sharing knowledge and ideas for the good of society." But... he says he may sue them now. Specifically, he's asking them to help fund his defense, in exchange for not getting sued for the patent. He points out that his actual funds are still frozen by the DOJ and (more importantly) that his case actually matters a great deal to Google, Facebook and Twitter, because the eventual ruling will likely set a precedent that may impact them -- especially around the DMCA. That's actually a pretty good reason for the tech industry to think about participating in the case even if they don't like Dotcom at all and don't want to be associated with him. Bad cases make dangerous caselaw, so having a good defense would be useful. That said, the threat of suing over a patent if they don't fund his defense seems like a potentially poorly thought out strategic move that could backfire. Remember, Dotcom has been hit with racketeering claims, and I would think that anything that implies "give me money or I'll sue" isn't the best move for someone already facing racketeering charges.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Here's an interesting one. Amazon is getting some buzz today for launching Kindle Worlds, a setup by which authors of fan fiction can effectively profit from their works without fear of legal repercussions. Obviously, there's a ton of fan fiction out there, and while most copyright holders don't mind it (with a few notable exceptions) as long as nothing is being sold, Amazon seems to be trying to take it to the next level. They're basically licensing the copyrights from certain popular works (at this point, mostly TV shows, it appears), such that fans can write their own fanfic, have it sold via Amazon (of course) and the profits get split up. For works over 10,000 words, the fanfic author gets a 35% cut. For shorter works, it's 20%. There may be some concerns about this. The "ownership" of the new work belongs to Amazon, as you're basically signing a publishing agreement with Amazon, who then controls the work. Given the situation, that might not be that much of an issue for most fanfiction authors, but some may be concerned (for example, imagine if this had happened with 50 Shades of Grey, which originated as Twilight fanfic, before becoming a monstrosity of its own). Also, there's no guarantee that Amazon will agree to sell the work, but it claims it will publish "as many as possible." It basically sounds like they reserve the right to reject ridiculously bad works. In some ways, though in very different circumstances, this reminds me of some of the cooler aspects of YouTube's ContentID program, in that it sets up a way for people to reasonably monetize what might be considered infringement under the law, but which most people realize isn't what copyright law should be destroying. Once again, if you just make it so that innovation can occur, people quite frequently figure out business models that build on what maximalists consider "piracy" if they give it time and let the business models shake out.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

I'm obviously a big fan of crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter, but I've always argued that it's just one of many models that content creators can use to succeed today. In fact, for a long time, I've felt that the biggest thing that was missing from Kickstarter was any sort of ongoing payment system. It's entirely project based, and thus it's not the best tool for ongoing revenue. For many years I've been interested in ideas for more ongoing revenue streams, and even proposed the idea of "subscribing" to a band's output nearly a decade ago. So it's good to see that some folks are exploring some of these ideas in much more detail. I met Jack Conte a few years ago, after having written about him and his band Pomplamoose a few times. I'd always been impressed by Pomplamoose's ability to really connect with their fans and to build a way to support themselves via that strong connection. But in my brief interactions with Jack, it quickly became clear that he thinks deeply about different ideas for revenue models, and so it's little surprise that he's now built what seems like a pretty cool platform for ongoing support for content creators. It's basically a platform, like Kickstarter, but rather than backing a project, you back the production of certain types of regular content. So, for example, you could promise that you'll pay $5 every time Jack releases a new video (and you can put limits on how much you pay, so he doesn't get away with suddenly releasing 1,000 videos at once). It's called Patreon, and it's got a nice, simple video explaining how it works: I'm sure some will argue that this is just a "paywall," but it's actually the opposite of that. People aren't paying you to get access to the content. The content will be available elsewhere (often for free). They're paying to support your continued production (i.e., supporting future production, rather than paying to access past productions) and they can get extra benefits (added value) as supporters, such as Google Hangouts with the creators. Some of this is quite like a few of the popular subscription options in our Techdirt Insider Shop, though rather than monthly, the amounts are triggered per creation (I'm not sure that would work for a blog like ours that produces a bunch of content every day, but I could see how it would be quite cool for less frequent types of creative endeavors). Either way, I'm glad to see some new platforms popping up like this. For a little while, it had been getting kind of annoying to see just how many Kickstarter clones were popping up (including a new one from Donald Trump?!?). You never know, of course, if Patreon will catch on, but conceptually the model makes a lot of sense for many types of content creators. In some ways, it seems like a better model for connecting with "true fans" than something like a Kickstarter. While Kickstarter has the appeal of "this is a big event, join us!" it would be nice to see some more ongoing, sustainable model platforms become popular as well.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Here's an amusing one out of the UK. Nick Henderson has created something of a Swiftian "modest proposal" for people who feel guilty about infringement. Modeled after the idea of carbon offsets to become "carbon neutral," he suggests a process for becoming "piracy neutral," which is that if you happen to infringe by downloading an unauthorized song, you should freely release a track of your own composition into the world without restrictions. Henderson truly is trying to give back to the world, because he recorded some basic stems that he's put together and is offering up as the "piracy neutral fun pack", such that you can remix them yourself to create your own new music in an effort to become "piracy neutral." And, because people who angrily write comments on this site rarely read to the end of the post, I'll just point out that this is a joke, not anything even remotely serious. Laughter is good.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Maybe you remember your graduation. Maybe you don't. If you were lucky, you graduated college and knew exactly what you wanted to do. You had a job all lined up, and when asked about your plans, you could avoid saying anything along the lines of: I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything as a career. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed, or buy anything sold or processed, or process anything sold, bought, or processed, or repair anything sold, bought, or processed. You know, as a career, I don't want to do that. Here are just a few more pithy words for recent graduates. (PS. Congratulations!) Bill Watterson, the creator of Calvin & Hobbes, spoke publicly at his alma mater for graduation. "The truth is, most of us discover where we are headed when we arrive. At that time, we turn around and say, yes, this is obviously where I was going all along. It's a good idea to try to enjoy the scenery on the detours, because you'll probably take a few." [url] Everyone should pursue their passion, right? But what if you don't know what your passion is? Economist Tyler Cowen tried to respond to this question, but Cowen admitted he was stumped on how to pick a particular career path. [url] The world's first commencement speech via Twitter was just 20 tweets long. If you thought that a 140 character limit might deliver more profound or sage advice, tweet #12 is "Never tweet pictures of yourself in underwear..." nuff said? [url] If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

We've talked in the past about how patent trolling operations love to use shell companies to hide who actually owns the patents. Intellectual Ventures has thousands of shells, but it's even worse in many cases when it's smaller trolls, where no one has any idea who's actually behind the trolling. You may remember a few years back, when Reddit, Digg, Fark, Slashdot and others were sued over a bogus patent held by a shell company called "Gooseberry Natural Resources LLC," and we wondered if the collective communities behind those sites might be able to figure out who actually owned the patent in question. But even those hive minds failed to turn up much of use. Thankfully, Rep. Ted Deutch has introduced a bill that would require a true disclosure of the owners of patents that are being used in litigation. Specifically, the bill would require a much clearer accounting of who "any real party in interest" would be concerning any patent. Failure to do so would mean that it would limit the ability of those patent owners to collect on any damages. Specifically, patent owners can only collect on damages that occur after the true owners of the patent are disclosed. This would help a tremendous amount, since so much in the patent troll world today is done in incredibly shady ways. It is believed that a very large number of patent trolling operations are actually run by patent lawyers themselves, who saw how lucrative it was, but who don't want to be publicly identified with their trolling. Forcing the actual owners to identify themselves would be a big help in making sure that people actually understand what's happening with patent trolling. It's interesting to see Congress suddenly interested in patent reform again, even if in a piecemeal fashion. After spending nearly a decade fighting over a "comprehensive" patent reform bill that became the America Invents Act (a watered-down, mostly useless, bill) we kept hearing people say that patent reform was "done" in Congress. But in the past few months, three key bills have been introduced, each targeting the patent trolling problem. There was Rep. DeFazio's SHIELD Act, which would make it easier to shift fees and make trolls responsible for the costs of bogus lawsuits. Then, a few weeks ago, there was Senator Schumer's bill to make it easier to get tech patents reviewed relatively quickly by the USPTO to see if we can throw out more bad patents. And now this bill, called the End Anonymous Patents Act, from Rep. Deutch. So far, none of the bills has received much momentum, but it's good to see that more and more people in Congress are realizing that the patent system is incredibly broken, and that trolls are a big part of that.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Back in 2010, we wrote about Google's Eric Schmidt suggesting that in the future kids might change their names as they reach adulthood in order to disconnect their present-selves from their youthful indiscretions that were recorded permanently online. That seemed a bit silly to us at the time, but Schmidt is still focused on this basic concept apparently. His latest is the desire for some sort of delete button for the internet, again as a way to cover up some youthful indiscretions: "In America, there's a sense of fairness that's culturally true for all of us," Schmidt said. "The lack of a delete button on the Internet is a significant issue. There is a time when erasure is a right thing." Of course, this makes me wonder, what the hell did Eric Schmidt do as a kid that was so bad? Yes, yes, we erase the criminal records of youthful offenders when they come of age, but I think this is something different. Trying to delete factual information from the internet is a quixotic task, unlikely to yield much that's beneficial. Perhaps instead of trying to delete the past, society as a whole will become a lot more accepting of the fact that kids do stupid things when they're young. And many of them learn valuable lessons from those stupid things and they grow up to be better people. Plenty of folks have funny tales of their youthful indiscretions and, while these stories may be more difficult to embellish for effect if the details are all sitting on YouTube, does it really make more sense to try to delete that history or just to recognize that kids grow up and things they did as teenagers do not reflect how they're likely to act as adults?Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

We've argued for quite some time that law enforcement's desire to require backdoors for wiretapping in all electronic communications is really dumb, because it won't just be law enforcement using it (and, when they use it, it won't just be for legitimate purposes). As soon as you have that backdoor in place, you've pretty much guaranteed that it becomes something of a target. And the news that broke earlier this week about how Chinese hackers who broke into Google servers a few years ago were targeting their database of which accounts had been flagged for national security surveillance makes this point that much clearer. The people doing this kind of hacking aren't dumb: they know that there are weaknesses where they can probe. A few weeks back, a Microsoft exec had actually revealed that their own analysis of similar attacks on Microsoft's servers from China showed the same basic target and discussed the serious implications. "What we found was the attackers were actually looking for the accounts that we had lawful wiretap orders on," Aucsmith says. "So if you think about this, this is brilliant counter-intelligence. You have two choices: If you want to find out if your agents, if you will, have been discovered, you can try to break into the FBI to find out that way. Presumably that's difficult. Or you can break into the people that the courts have served paper on and see if you can find it that way. That's essentially what we think they were trolling for, at least in our case." The more openings and the more data that is shared, the more openings and opportunities there are for people who you don't want to see that data to have access to it. That should be a major concern. Just before all of this was revealed, we had written about a new report how such backdoors basically destroy any competent attempt at cybersecurity. Julian Sanchez highlights how those who think this isn't a problem are almost certainly confused about how computer security works. Defenders of the FBI proposal tend to pooh-pooh security concerns raised about requirisng such backdoors: Our brilliant American programmers, they assert, will find ways to enable wiretapping without creating new vulnerabilities. But if a company like Google, with its massive financial resources and a stable of some of the smartest coders anywhere, can be victimized in this way, how realistic is it to expect thousands of Internet startups to achieve better security? Creating more access to information that should be secret might help law enforcement, at the expense of our civil liberties, but it's also going to help those with nefarious intent quite a bit. And that should be a serious concern.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

A pair of the cell phone recordings of the David Silva beating have been released by attorney Daniel Rodriguez. 23ABC News received the videos first, both of which capture the final moments of Silva's life. Unfortunately for those seeking more clarity as to the actions of the nine responding officers, these videos fail to provide much insight into the officers' actions during the previous 30-40 minutes. Both videos were shot after the batons had stopped (allegedly) swinging. [The videos won't embed so you'll have to click through to view them.] In the first, Silva is surrounded by several members of law enforcement who are obviously still restraining him. You can hear faint orders to "get down" being yelled by the officers, but the most noticeable sounds come from Silva himself, who spends most of the runtime screaming. The second video shows the efforts of law enforcement and the responding EMS unit to revive Silva. One of the offscreen voices makes a couple of interesting statements. First, he points out that officers "stood around for five minutes" by Silva's unmoving body before attempting resuscitation. The second, echoed by a female voice, lends some credence to the story put forth by several witnesses: "Now, it's a murder scene." Also of note, at 5:19 a second cell phone, presumably recording, shows up in frame. This would appear to be the other cell phone that was seized by the Sheriff's Department, the one on which the footage is no longer available. The witnesses claim that both phones had footage of officers striking and kicking Silva, but with both phones now returned to their owners, none of the footage has survived. Both phones made their way from the deputies who seized the phones to the Kern County Sheriff's Office, which then shared the phones with the Bakersfield PD and the FBI. The FBI has apparently analyzed both phones but has yet to release its findings. Here's where we stand right now, according to Rodriguez: Rodriguez told ABC23 that "the more incriminating video was one on the other cellphone." He said that video was shot "while the batons were swinging." Rodriguez added the second phone was returned to his client with no video. If a video was erased from that phone, he said, it could not be recovered because of the type of the device. David Cohn, the attorney for David Silva's family, has his own concerns: [Cohn] said his clients are concerned that the videos might be erased or destroyed, either accidentally or on purpose. He has not seen them. "If I'd heard that they'd given them to the FBI, ok," he told The Associated Press on Tuesday. "But the Bakersfield Police Department, whom they work with on a daily basis? It certainly doesn't have the look of impartiality." Cohn also (obviously) has his concerns about the phone seizures themselves. Cohn said the Sheriff's Department went "well beyond a reasonable search" in obtaining the videos, making no effort to ask for copies or voluntary cooperation from the witnesses. "They held these people hostage for several hours pending the serving of a search warrant. I've never heard of that before," he said. Beyond the deputies' abuse of these witnesses' rights, there's another aspect that may have made these seizures illegal, as posited by ExCop-LawStudent. The Privacy Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000aa(a) (hereafter PPA), states: Notwithstanding any other law, it shall be unlawful for a government officer or employee, in connection with the investigation or prosecution of a criminal offense, to search for or seize any work product materials possessed by a person reasonably believed to have a purpose to disseminate to the public a newspaper, book, broadcast, or other similar form of public communication…. This law provides that if a person takes a video of police action and intends to disseminate it to the public, the police can only obtain the video by subpoena, not by a search warrant. In this case neither of the individuals who had their property seized were suspects in the crime being investigated, the death of David Silva at the hands of Kern County Sheriff’s deputies, nor were they being arrested. The sheriff’s office was aware of the video because the individual that taped the beating called 911. Further, that individual informed the 911 personnel that she intended to disseminate the video to the public (at 0:46 of the call), saying “I’m sending it to the news.” At this point, the Sheriff’s office was on notice that this was “work product” protected by the Privacy Protection Act, and should have been obtained by subpoena, not by a search warrant. Indeed, the law specifically provides that a warrant can only be used after a subpoena has failed to obtain the material. In support of this argument, the author cites the infamous case brought against the US by Steve Jackson Games, which had several work products seized by US Secret Service agents via a warrant, despite not being a suspect in the investigation at hand. The end result was $50,000 in damages plus attorney's fees being awarded to the game maker for these illegal seizures. The video supposedly containing the most damning footage is missing. What we do have available only shows the aftermath of the beating. We're still waiting for much more information to be released. There's been no word back from the FBI on its analysis of the phones. The coroner has yet to release an official cause of death and the sheriff's office has stated this process could take up to four months. Kern County Sheriff Donny Youngblood continues to make concerned noises, but the lack of conclusive video has also prompted a bit more hedging, along with some unfortunate statements. "I have seen the video," Youngblood said last week. "I cannot speculate whether they acted appropriately or not just by looking at the video." The sheriff, however, acknowledged that there is a great deal of public concern about the incident and subsequent investigation. "It is not just troubling to the public, it is not just troubling to news media, it is troubling to me," he said. In an interview with The Times, he said the credibility of the department is at stake. "Baton strikes were used, but what I don't know is how many and where they were on the body and if they caused significant injury that caused death," he said. Youngblood said the baton is a less lethal weapon, and because of that its use doesn’t usually lead to deputies being placed on leave. But he said the head is not an appropriate place for a baton strike. "Sometimes in the heat of battle, the baton doesn't go where you want it to go.... If someone has 20 baton strikes to the head, OK, that is easy for us. But when there is a fight or scuffle and a baton strike goes where it should not ... then you have to evaluate,” he said. The passive voice in this context is bordering on reprehensible. There's a person controlling the baton and that person presumably should have the training to ensure proper "placement" of the weapon. The two deputies seen on the surveillance tape seem to be controlling their batons very well, using both hands to swing and connect with Silva. Nine officers swinging batons at one man are going to run out of "appropriate" real estate on a human body very quickly. Youngblood seems to be drawing a line between proper baton use and a savage beating, but he's drawing the line in his office's favor. If all officers aimed exclusively and repeatedly for Silva's head, it's an open-and-shut case. But, if Silva struggled, or if blows rained down on other parts of his body as well, it's probably just good (if a bit too aggressive) police work (pending "evaluation"). Youngblood's statement serves two purposes: to define how far officers under his control actually have to go in terms of violence in order to warrant further review or disciplinary action, and to justify the fact that his deputies are still on active duty, despite earlier reporting that they had been placed on paid administrative leave until the investigation was complete. It is common to place law enforcement officers on paid leave during investigations of arrest-related deaths, but the Californian reported the deputies involved remain on duty. Youngblood's deputies who allegedly beat a man to death are still on patrol. One hopes that they won't find themselves in any situations in which a baton strike might be used, or go where the deputies "don't want it to go." Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

AT&T isn't going to let something like "net neutrality" slow it down from shaking every spare cent out of its customer base. (Source: I'm a customer. Also: see these.) Beginning last year with its blocking of Apple's Facetime app (exempting customers who were paying for higher service tiers) and continuing on through its recent lockout of Google Hangouts, AT&T has skirted neutrality by using one term: pre-loaded. In its mind, as long as an app is "pre-loaded" by phone manufacturers (and competing options are available), AT&T can block app functionality if it feels it's somehow leaving money on the table. Of course, this irritates many of its customers and brings with it an uncomfortable amount of heat as the word travels around the web. AT&T has now issued another statement to critics of its Hangout-blocking, one which sends the clear message that the company will gladly welcome streaming video apps with open arms (even pre-loaded apps), just as soon as it's able to simultaneously welcome a fat stream of income. AT&T has issued a second, follow up statement that doesn't make a whole lot more sense than the first one did, and again tries to place the blame at the feet of OS and device makers. AT&T does, however, promise that they'll stop blocking video chat apps from running over their network by the end of this year: "For video chat apps that come pre-loaded on devices, we currently give all OS and device makers the ability for those apps to work over cellular for our customers who are on Mobile Share or Tiered plans. Apple, Samsung and BlackBerry have chosen to enable this for their pre-loaded video chat apps. And by mid-June, we’ll have enabled those apps over cellular for our unlimited plan customers who have LTE devices from those three manufacturers. Throughout the second half of this year, we plan to enable pre-loaded video chat apps over cellular for all our customers, regardless of data plan or device; that work is expected to be complete by year end. Today, all of our customers can use any mobile video chat app that they download from the Internet, such as Skype." AT&T's buying time while trying to appear to be working towards a "solution" for all of its customers. The longer it can hold out, the more likely the chance that someone upgrades or switches devices, thus pulling them off their grandfathered unlimited data plans and onto tiered/metered plans that earn AT&T a bit more money. It tries to present this as a network issue, but Karl Bode translates AT&T's corporatespeak into the miserable truth: In other words this isn't really technical (AT&T's LTE network is currently ranked the fastest available in the States), it's a way to bully unlimited users on to costlier plans. It's also a network neutrality violation, regardless of AT&T's choice of language. Now, there's nothing wrong with a business attempting to earn more money. But the key word here is "earn." AT&T's just trying to grab more income while offering nothing in return but a bunch of laughable statements -- both in regards to the current issues, as well as the non-stop "congestion" posturing it uses to justify limited, expensive data plans. It's obviously most interested in tying users to high-margin "services." The least it could do is drop the obviously ridiculous statements and tell its customers they can have what they want just as soon as it gets what it wants. Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

In a story that sounds mighty similar to the Andrew "weev" Aurenheimer situation, two reporters from the Scripps News service have been told that they may be hit with Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) charges after a Google search they did turned up personal data on 170,000 customers that two telcos left exposed. At issue are low-income customers of YourTel and TerraCom, who provide service for the FCC's Lifeline, a phone service for people who are enrolled in state or federal assistance programs. Apparently, the real issue was a company called Vcare, which the two telcos outsourced certain services to. The Scripps reporters noted that they did nothing more than a Google search: The unprotected TerraCom and YourTel records came to light through the simplest of tools: a reporter’s Google search of TerraCom. The records include 44,000 application or certification forms and 127,000 supporting documents or “proof” files, such as scans or photos of food-stamp cards, driver’s licenses, tax records, U.S. and foreign passports, pay stubs and parole letters. Taken together, the records expose residents of at least 26 states. The application records, drawn from 18 of those states and generally dated from last September through November, list potential customers’ names, signatures, birth dates, home addresses and partial or full Social Security numbers. The proof files, from last September through April, include residents of at least eight remaining states. Of course, rather than be thankful to the reporters for letting them know about a huge security lapse, or be apologetic for revealing all sorts of key data on their customers, they decided to sue. However, Vcare and the two telecom companies assert that the reporters "hacked" their way into the data using "automated" methods to access the data. And what was this malicious hacking tool that penetrated the security of Vcare's servers? In a letter sent to Scripps News by Jonathan D. Lee, counsel for both of the cell carriers, Lee said that Vcare's research had shown that the reporters were "using the 'Wget' program to search for and download the Companies' confidential data." GNU Wget is a free and open source tool used for batch downloads over HTTP and FTP. Lee claimed Vcare's investigation found the files were bulk-downloaded via two Scripps IP addresses. I'm not sure how anyone could claim that the mere use of Wget constitutes a form of hacking, even under the extremely loose interpretations of the CFAA. However, as mentioned, the story does have similarities to the weev case -- except this time we're talking about reporters for a well known news service, rather than someone with a reputation as an internet troll. Hopefully, if the telcos do decide to actually file a lawsuit, it gets laughed out of court.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Another day, another story of a ridiculously overaggressive legal move by a big company. This time it's the NY Times, which turned its bogus nastygramming skills on a startup called Scroll Kit. Scroll Kit is a three person startup that tries to make a system to create more compelling publishing of stories easier. There's been a big push to make digital media more digitally native, and there have been a few cool examples of it in action, but it still tends to take a lot of development time -- something that Scroll Kit is looking to make easier. Neat. Of course, if you follow the media space, you'd know that last year, the NY Times put out a story called Snow Fall that was very well designed. I didn't think it was miraculous, but definitely a step up, and showed a better way to tell a story online. The old media guard has been spazzing out over Snow Fall as if it was the greatest thing ever, which is silly -- and even the NYT itself is taking that one example way too seriously in turning "snow fall" into a verb inside its newsroom -- as in, "we need to 'snow fall' that story." Okay. Whatever. The guys at Scroll Kit agreed that Snow Fall is a nice example, and they knew that it took the NY Times many months to design it. So, in a compelling example of their own product, they showed how Scroll Kit could be used to recreate Snow Fall's design elements in about an hour, and put up a video showing that. This is called "good marketing." But, to the NY Times, they claimed it was copyright infringement, sending the following email to Scroll Kit founder Cody Brown: First of all, there's a tremendously strong fair use argument here. Nothing in what Scroll Kit did with the video competed with the Snow Fall story in any way shape or form. The video was just a demonstration of its product and how you could use it to create a Snow Fall like experience. Still, the folks at Scroll Kit decided that fighting the NY Times wasn't worth the trouble, so they took down the video and sent off an email to the lawyer saying they had complied. But, apparently that wasn't enough for Deborah Beshaw-Farrell of the NY Times' legal department, as she sent off another letter, still complaining: The first letter was bad, but this one is downright ridiculous. Switching the video to private should certainly be enough. But, the claim that they need to remove any reference to the NY Times from the website, including a factual description of reality is completely bogus. It's just the NY Times acting as a legal bully. Brown publicly asked the NY Times to reconsider, noting that if it believes so strongly that things like Snow Fall are the future of news, it's pretty ridiculous for them to try to intimidate and shut down a startup looking to make that process easier. In response to Brown's request for more info, he received a third email, from a different lawyer at the NY Times, Richard Samson, with a statement that is even more ridiculous: Dear Mr. Brown: We are offended by the fact that you are promoting your tool, as a way to quickly replicate copyright-protected content owned by The New York Times Company. It also seems strange to me that you would defend your right to boast about how quickly you were able to commit copyright infringement: The NYT spent hundreds of hours hand-coding “Snow Fall” We made a replica in an hour. If you wouldn’t mind using another publication to advertise your infringement tool, we’d appreciate it. Sincerely, Richard Samson Again, this is completely bogus on many levels. The tool is not "an infringement tool," it's a creative tool for creating this type of thing. Anyone with any even rudimentary knowledge of design and development know that it's fairly standard for people to create tools based on creating things that others have created in the past. In fact, lots of websites copy elements and style from other websites. Even the NY Times tends to be a fairly derivative site design-wise. Second: being "offended" is no legal basis for making a threat. Brown was not boasting about "committing copyright infringement," but about using a tool to be able to do a similar design. It had nothing to do with infringement, and everything to do with making the design process easier. The NY Times is being absolutely ridiculous here. Once again, however, we see what happens when companies focus on legal strategies rather than supporting innovation. Sure, Scroll Kit could make it easier for competitors to the NY Times to create compelling stories, but it also might help the NY Times drive its own efforts forward. Perhaps, rather than spend many months of its own designers' time, it could use something like Scroll Kit to make it easier for their staff to design such compelling stories. Instead, they focus on stifling it with highly questionable legal threats. You know how you can tell when a company is really in trouble? When it focuses on legal attacks on others, rather than driving its own innovation.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

The weather's (mostly) hot. School's almost out. And what better way to celebrate summer being almost here than being arrested and charged with a misdemeanor for throwing water balloons. Hail academia, forever teaching our youth that anything and everything will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, even childhood hijinks our parents would have approved of, if only they weren't so busy being arrested themselves. Seven teenage students in North Carolina were arrested on Thursday and charged with a misdemeanor for throwing water balloons during a school prank. A parent was also arrested during the incident. The seven boys, all between the ages of 16 and 17, threw balloons filled with tap water as an end-of-year prank at Enloe High School in Raleigh. The balloons were rumored to be filled with “other substances,” but Wake County Public School System spokeswoman Renee McCoy said “all indications” were that only water was used. Six of the teens were charged with disorderly conduct. The seventh was charged with assault and battery for hitting a school security officer with a balloon. You've got to respect the uniform -- even if that uniform is a 50/50 polyester/ugly blend. If other students, teachers and administration staff get hit, that's a paddlin' simple "disorderly conduct" (a.k.a., the cop's best friend). And if you can't respect the security guard's uniform, you had damn well better respect the boys in blue, or you'll get thrown to the ground for throwing water balloons. Kevin Hines, the parent who was arrested, was just acting out of concern for a student's wellbeing. No good deed goes unpunished, not when we're sending cops after kids armed with water balloons. Kevin Hines said saw Raleigh police officers acting aggressively towards a student they were arresting when he drove up to the school. "Being lifted up by the neck and taken down hard," Hines said. Hines said he tried to intervene was but was told he didn't know the whole story. Hines complied and said he wished to speak to the principal. "You're just trying to cause trouble. Get out," Hines said an officer told him. Hines said he then attempted to talk to a lieutenant but was approached by two officers and threatening with a TASER. Hines said he told the officers that wasn't necessary. "They arrested me on grounds of trespassing," Hines said. "So, they put cuffs on me and carried me away." Swell. An unarmed parent who's concerned that someone (NOT A COP) might get hurt is handcuffed, threatened with a taser and charged for "causing trouble," which apparently goes on the books as "second degree trespassing." Another parent is "causing trouble" as well, although this might be the kind of trouble that sticks: The mother of an Enloe High School student has filed a complaint with the Raleigh Police Department after an officer threw her son to the ground Thursday as police responded to a water balloon battle at the school. Call me naive, but I never thought I'd ever read a sentence this incongruous in my life: "...as police responded to a water balloon battle..." Tase me. Tase me now, lord. At least it wasn't a water pistol fight. Martial law would have been declared and the National Guard called in. Here's the school's official statement on the "event." Renee McCoy, a representative of Wake County Public Schools, said they rely on the training of the Raleigh Police Department in these situations. "We leave those decisions up to Raleigh PD," McCoy said. Punt. Seven kids with misdemeanors on their records ("released on bail" -- I am not kidding) for throwing weaponized water. I'm not really sure what schools are teaching kids at this point -- that every minor infraction must be dealt with swiftly and brutally? That violating school policies is a criminal offence? Whatever they're trying to teach by jettisoning critical thinking and replacing it with zero tolerance cops on speed dial, it's not getting through. All students are going to learn is that school administration has farmed out its disciplinary responsibilities to a variety of humorless, uniformed thugs -- some private, some public -- and that there really is no crime too small.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

Yesterday we had a story about how a judge in Minnesota, Judge Ann Alton, angrily accused Paul Hansmeier of fraud in the lawsuit filed by Alan Cooper against Prenda. There was some confusion by the judge about whether Cooper and Godfread were in on the fraud too, which seems to have made the judge less open to possible damages against Prenda. Either way, without a court reporter, Matthew Sparby, who was in attendance, wrote up the following first-hand account of what happened in the court room. It's definitely disappointing to see that the judge made a few bad assumptions about Cooper/Godfread, but good to see that she knew that Prenda has been up to no good. I am not an attorney. I attended today's hearing out of curiosity and convenience. I happened to have an appointment across the street from the Hennepin County Government Center today and decided that it would be interesting to see the wheels of justice in motion first hand. As such, it is important to note that these are the observations of a layperson. As the session started, Judge Alton announced that there was no live court reporter and that there was an audio recording being made instead. Two other cases were called first, and then the Judge called Cooper vs. Prenda. She began by saying, "This one gives me a lot of pause." Then the attorneys introduced themselves. Paul Godfread was present representing Alan Cooper (who was not in attendance) and Paul Hansmeier was present representing Prenda, et al. He sat alone at the table and I don't believe any other Prenda principals were in attendance. Judge Alton then started off by addressing Hansmeier saying that it would appear he had a bit of a conflict relating to some findings of law, "[an] order from a US District Court Judge sanctioning you for fraud, among other things." She went on to say, "I'm not sure I should hear you at all." She asked Hansmeier if Morgan Pietz had filed the list of Bar Associations to which the Prenda principals were admitted as well as whether Pietz had sent copies of Judge Wright's order to all of the other Judges presiding over Prenda cases. Hansmeier replied, "I believe he did, your honor." Judge Alton was clearly agitated going into this. In reference to the Prenda business model she said, "This is fraud, clear and simple." She also said, "I will be reporting this to the Lawyers Board." In fact, she would make a similar comment at least one more time at the end of the hearing. Still addressing Hansmeier, she went on, "Your involvement in this case is a TRAVESTY!" She added impact (both figuratively and literally) to that point by slapping her hand on the bench. If I closed my eyes, I could have very easily assumed I was watching an episode of Judge Judy at this point. Judge Alton's passion and inflection as she admonished Prenda's behavior was, quite frankly, a tremendous surprise to me as a non-attorney. My discussions with actual attorneys after the hearing confirmed the abnormality of the scene. In an attempt to defend their activities, Hansmeier referenced the the actions of the RIAA and MPAA. Judge Alton was unimpressed. She told him, "That doesn't mean you become your own zealot!" Further berating Prenda's pattern of mailing threatening settlement letters to alleged copyright violators, Judge Alton said, "You are guilty of fraud every time you send one of these letters." Hansmeier then began to reference the Jammie Thomas-Rasset case. Again, the Judge wasn't interested, interrupting with a curt, "So what?" Now things got a little bit confusing. The Judge called Paul Hansmeier a fraud. Then she said that Alan Cooper is a fraud and that Paul Godfread may be a fraud as well. I looked to the person sitting next to me and the look on his face showed the same confusion. Quite humbly, Godfread told Judge Alton that he took exception to being labeled a fraud. He tried to clarify the situation but his message didn't seem to get through. In fact, for much of the hearing, Judge Alton was under the impression that Judge Wright's order actually implicated Alan Cooper as a Prenda Principal. Luckily this comes up again later. As Godfread was explaining Cooper's actual position in reference to Judge Wright's findings, Hansmeier objected. He complained that there was no evidence to support the findings and said that they weren't given the opportunity to cross examine Cooper during the sanctions hearing in Los Angeles. Throughout the hearing, Judge Alton would frequently refer back to Judge Wright's sanctions order, reading portions of it both to herself and out loud to clarify various points including asking where "Nevis" is. Godfread said it was an island in the Caribbean, most commonly known as an offshore tax haven. While he was saying this, Hansmeier was shaking his head. The Judge continued to review the various exhibits filed with the case and Paul Hansmeier again raised the issue of not having been given the opportunity to cross examine Alan Cooper in L.A. Judge Alton glared at him saying, "That, right now, does not concern me." She then turned her attention to Godfread saying, "You're not going to get any damages out of me. I don't give damages when everyone is a fraud." Again, she appeared to be under the impression that Alan Cooper was complicit in Prenda's actions. Godfread repeated his earlier assertions that Cooper was merely a caretaker for John Steele's property in Minnesota. The Judge then said, "Mr. Steele worked for Prenda Law which is running these phony lawsuits." After reading further into Judge Wright's findings, Judge Alton finally identified the portion that clearly separated Alan Cooper from Prenda's actions and identified him as a victim of their fraud rather than a willing participant. Unfortunately, this new realization didn't seem to alter Judge Alton's stance on refusing to grant any damages. Godfread decided to approach it from a different angle, though. In lieu of damages, he suggested that Judge Alton order Prenda to return all of the settlement money it had received over the course of its campaign. Judge Alton rejected that suggestion saying that it wouldn't be possible unless, via discovery or other means, they are able to determine how much money that actually is. The Judge then took a moment to reiterate that Prenda's methods of threatening people are not allowed before moving on to the topic of service. This is, after all, a Default Hearing. Hansmeier repeated the assertion that Prenda never received service of the complaint. The judge looked through the folder in front of her and suggested that Godfread may not have properly served Prenda. She asked Godfread if he served them through publication. He said that he didn't, but told her that, as shown in his Affidavit of Service, he sent the complaint and the interrogatories via certified mail and provided a receipt from the US Postal Service showing that it was received by Prenda on March 18th. He also refers to the fact that Prenda DID respond to the interrogatories, so how can they claim they never received service of the rest of it? Judge Alton then said, "That will satisfy me." Hansmeier then claims that Duffy received only the interrogatories and not the complaint, and that Godfread's receipt doesn't prove that the complaint was sent in that envelope. The Judge responded with, "Mr. Duffy's credibility is not good and he's not here." Judge Alton then asked Godfread about other facts such as whether they have proof that Prenda was keeping the settlement money. Godfread said that Hansmeier himself admitted as much. Hansmeier responded saying, "That is categorically false." The Judge then asked if Cooper had actually testified to the fact that he did not authorize the use of his name in the AF Holdings cases. Godfread confirmed that Cooper did testify to that. Then, talking to Godfread, Judge Alton said, "I can't find a conspiracy to harm him. I believe you but I can't find it." She then made her order. She ordered that Prenda and its principals immediately cease using Alan Cooper's name, "and that's all. That's as far as I'll go." In parting, she addressed Paul Hansmeier, once again saying, "I believe you to be in violation of a whole lot of rules." She then repeated her earlier statement that she was forwarding the case folder to the Lawyers Board. And that was the end. Judge Alton then called a recess before the next case. After leaving the courtroom, I sat down with another observer for a cup of coffee as we discussed how strange the hearing was. A few minutes later, Paul Godfread walked up and we chatted for a while about how the hearing had unfolded in such an unexpected way. He understandably lamented the lack of a damage award. When I told him that following all of this over the last several months has been educational, he expressed a fear of it being a poor source of education given how atypical these proceedings have been. Still, I'm glad that I was able to attend today and I would encourage other members of the laity like myself to make an effort to observe these kinds of proceedings themselves. It was a truly fascinating experience.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...

If you have sensed an increase in the levels of air-borne stupidity in the world lately, as have I, you might be looking for the root cause of this collective mental climate change. I think I've found it. I believe it's caused by emissions of stupid generated by the debate over violent video games. Where else can you go for opinions that so blatantly ignore statistics and reason? You have retired military trumping up the next generations of "killers," despite violence and mass shootings being down in America. We have the damned Vice President of the United States showing his complete blind spot on the legality of taxing supposedly violent games. Not to mention newspaper industries that rely on the 1st Amendment to operate considering whether censorship of violent media might just be the answer to all of our problems. But if you thought that was as bad as theories on how violent games are harmful, oh boy were you wrong. See, a South Korean professor now believes that violent games are a plague on all of us...because they make our video cards run hotter and the resulting radio waves are harmful. Korean site Inven (via tipster Sang) reports that the professor's study apparently revealed that a game's graphics card temperature was 36°C when idling. Now, that sounds about right. The card's temperature apparently increased to 45°C during a racing game. But then, Professor Cho's study stated that when a "violent game" was played, the temperature supposedly shot up to 57°C. In turn, the game emitted more radio waves. For those of you who aren't suffering face-palm-inducing concussion syndrome, you're probably already thinking about all the other everyday things that can cause your GPU to run hotter, such as graphic design work or, you know, watching HD movies. In fact, those activities can push the temperatures even higher. Or maybe you're thinking about how correlating how much work a GPU does to how violent a game is just might be the kind of thing that can cause a brain to commit suicide. Or maybe you're wondering if having your notebook computer on your lap every time you've played Doom has put your testicles at risk of mutation, turning them into monsterous, sentient testicilians, a race of self-reproductive hell-nuts bent on destroying the world. Well, whatever you're thinking, calm the hell down and put your pants back on. This guy is as crackers as crackers gets. Previously, Professor Cho has apparently published research on how drinking for three days straight will cause liver damage, how watching porn will cause unmarried men liver damage, and how smartphones cause people to have irregular voices. He sounds like a very serious researcher! Were any of that actually true, I can assure you I'd be speaking in falsetto about my double-liver-damage instead of remarking on how crazy Professor Cho is.Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read More...