Since some folks in traditional media still love to pretend that they are part of a select group of information filters that can provide fact-checked news items and that their internet counterparts cannot, I'm going to keep driving this point home: internet news groups and blogs are no more susceptible to hoaxes than major news media. We saw a wonderful example of it recently with the Manti Te'o story, in which major news not only bought the BS hook, line and sinker, but through their inaction, actually perpetuated the story. Still, while that was a story that was, at best, a very sad case of someone lying their tail off, some examples can provide a little more levity.

Such as, for instance, when the L.A. Times and UPI write up very real accounts of a very fake iPhone case that includes a retractable cup-holder. The kicker being that Network World's blog dismissed it as a prank days earlier. Writer Paul McNamara didn't miss the chance to point this out.

Hate to say I told you so ... No, wait, I'm fine with saying I told you so: That combination cup holder/iPhone case (right) that was mocked here on Friday is indeed a joke, or a publicity stunt if you prefer (and I do), according to the Dutch marketing firm that pitched it to reporters and the crowdsourcing site Indiegogo.

Yet, despite their forewarning, and despite the pure ridiculousness of a case for a phone where the largest part of the equipment holds a Starbucks coffee cup, the L.A. Times wrote about it in all seriousness.

In a video that can go toe to toe with any of the best infomercials ever made, Natwerk shows off its "Uppercup." The case is more than two inches thick, but it has a slide out cup holder that iPhone owners can use while they text with two hands or play a video game. Natwerk says the Uppercup will hold any size cup.

They go on to note that the Dutch company has thus far only raised $765 of their $25k goal, which probably should have been a sign that something might be off. They note that it might be something of a publicity stunt, but it wasn't. It was completely made up. That did not stop UPI from writing up their own piece, based entirely off of the L.A. Times article. UPI does not note anywhere that it might be a hoax or a publicity stunt.

So how much fact-checking would have been required to find out that this was all a joke? Apparently one email from McNamara, asking the marketing company responsible for this if it was a joke. Their response?

Yes, pretty much. For instance, the fact that we've made the whole thing about 3 times as thick as necessary we hoped would give away we weren't all that serious. Nevertheless, we really think it is a cool device and we would really want to have it produced so we can walk around and be cool with it attached to our iPhones.

It was a joke. So, it would appear, were the fact-checking abilities of two writers for major news media. Good thing there are blogs around to filter out their nonsense.

Sometime in the next few days -- perhaps Thursday or Friday -- expect that ICE and the DOJ will announce excitedly how they've seized another hundred or so websites that they'll claim were selling counterfeit NFL merchandise -- and maybe a couple sites that were planning to embed streams of the game. It's become a Super Bowl Weekend tradition because the feds have nothing better to do, apparently. Two local stories that came out this morning, however, suggest that the feds' priorities are out of whack. According to a CBS morning radio report in San Francisco, Homeland Security raided a guy selling 49ers merchandise on the street corner at a gas station. They told him that they knew he was selling counterfeit material and seized it... only to find out soon after that the merchandise was legit. Way to do your research, Homeland Security: Meanwhile, at the same time, there was actual fraud going on, as someone who spent $5,900 on Superbowl tickets on Craigslist was scammed and sent a note that just said "Goo Ravens!!! LOL" instead. Amazingly, the guy who sent that put a return address on the package and had spoken to the buyers a bunch on the phone. So you would think that, perhaps instead of swooping down on legitimate vendors selling legitimate goods, perhaps law enforcement could be out there arresting folks like this scammer instead. But, I guess that kind of stuff isn't as important to big companies like the NFL.

Surfaces that repel water are pretty fascinating to watch in action, especially on clothes when possible stains are magically avoided. There are plenty of other uses for hydrophobic materials that are cool, and some newer materials are omniphobic -- even superomniphobic. Here are just a few examples of these products that may be protecting all of our gadgets someday.

• A superhydrophobic coating called NeverWet can make a variety of materials extremely water resistent -- preventing things like ice buildup, corrosion and biofilm formation. As a demo, coating an iPhone with this stuff allowed it to be submerged for 30 minutes and still work... [url]
• Bio-inspired materials can be omniphobic -- repelling both oil and water. Plants do it. Maybe educated fleas humans can, too. [url]
• Ceramic materials that repel water could form more durable hydrophobic coatings. Rare earth oxides aren't so rare, and they could potentially create some pretty cool superhydrophobic surfaces. [url]
• A recently-created superomniphobic surface coating repels almost any liquid except chlorofluorocarbons. Non-Newtonian liquids also seem to "bounce" off this stuff -- which hasn't been seen before. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

The discussion begun by Aaron Swartz's suicide continues, prompting activity all around the internet. Overzealous prosecution of an outdated law, coupled with this tragedy, has led to hackathons, proposed legislation and criticism of the methods employed by Carmen Ortiz. This past weekend, Anonymous added its two-cents worth in its own particular idiom.

The action began Friday night when Anonymous took down the U.S. Sentencing Commission website, demanding reform of the justice system and threatening to expose a large number of files "secured" from the website. A very long statement of purpose accompanied this hack, beginning with these paragraphs.

Citizens of the world,

Anonymous has observed for some time now the trajectory of justice in the United States with growing concern. We have marked the departure of this system from the noble ideals in which it was born and enshrined. We have seen the erosion of due process, the dilution of constitutional rights, the usurpation of the rightful authority of courts by the "discretion" of prosecutors. We have seen how the law is wielded less and less to uphold justice, and more and more to exercise control, authority and power in the interests of oppression or personal gain.

We have been watching, and waiting.

Two weeks ago today, a line was crossed. Two weeks ago today, Aaron Swartz was killed. Killed because he faced an impossible choice. Killed because he was forced into playing a game he could not win -- a twisted and distorted perversion of justice -- a game where the only winning move was not to play.

Anonymous calls this takedown a "symbolic gesture," aimed at the home of federal sentencing guidelines, which it calls out for advancing "cruel and unusual" punishment, a clear violation of the 8th amendment. The collective also claims it has compromised several other government sites and obtained sensitive files, which it will start releasing to the press in "heavily redacted" form, unless its demands are met.

However, in order for there to be a peaceful resolution to this crisis, certain things need to happen. There must be reform of outdated and poorly-envisioned legislation, written to be so broadly applied as to make a felony crime out of violation of terms of service, creating in effect vast swathes of crimes, and allowing for selective punishment. There must be reform of mandatory minimum sentencing. There must be a return to proportionality of punishment with respect to actual harm caused, and consideration of motive and mens rea. The inalienable right to a presumption of innocence and the recourse to trial and possibility of exoneration must be returned to its sacred status, and not gambled away by pre-trial bargaining in the face of overwhelming sentences, unaffordable justice and disfavourable odds. Laws must be upheld unselectively, and not used as a weapon of government to make examples of those it deems threatening to its power.

Threats or no threats, the government took the USSC site offline and restored it to working order by Saturday... at which point it was hacked a second time by Anonymous. This time the hackers weren't screwing around. Instead of a simple vandalization, the entire site was turned into an interactive game of Asteroids.

The U.S. Sentencing Commission website has been hacked again and a code distributed by Anonymous "Operation Last Resort" turns ussc.gov into a playable video game.

Visitors enter the code, and then the website that sets guidelines for sentencing in United States Federal courts becomes "Asteroids."

Shooting away at the ussc.gov webpage reveals an image of Anonymous. The trademark Anonymous "Guy Fawkes" face is comprised of white text saying, "We do not forgive. We do not forget."

The code that turned the site "interactive" is very familiar to gamers.

ussc.gov --> enter Konami code (with cursor keys) ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A <Enter> ---> CAEK(repeat for NyanCat powers...) #opLastResort

— OpLastResort (@OpLastResort) January 27, 2013

The hack/game proved extremely popular, so Anonymous set up a mirror at another compromised site, miep.uscourts.gov (US Probation Dept.). At the time of writing this, both sites are down, suggesting the government has taken both sites offline until they can be "safely" restored.

Will these takedowns have any noticeable effect on those Anonymous is trying to reach? Most likely, no. Hacking a government website just makes it easier for those prosecuting hackers to make their case. Stewart Baker at The Volokh Conspiracy suggests that these actions do more harm than good to the collective's stated aim.

The exploit is probably counterproductive too. Apart from turning those who want reform of computer crime law into the allies of lawbreakers, Anonymous has substantively hurt the case for amending the CFAA. Heavy criminal penalties are entirely appropriate for people who hack a Supreme Court Justice’s account and disclose personal secrets. But it’s not easy to redraft the CFAA so it reflects the difference between Swartz and the Anonymous hackers, at least not without relying on precisely the prosecutorial discretion that the Swartz prosecutors misused.

Finally, I wonder if this incident won’t affect the Supreme Court’s approach to cybercrime issues. As Frank Rizzo once said, a conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged. If that’s true, every time Anonymous mugs one of the Justices in cyberspace, it could be making the Court just a little less enthusiastic about limiting the tools the government uses to deter computer crime

In his take, Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice takes issue with Baker's statement regarding the enthusiasm level of the courts.

Not that any of the justices have shown much enthusiasm up to now, but the alternative to bad isn't necessarily good. Things can always get worse.

While Baker argues that Anonymous makes things that much tougher for justice reform, Greenfield argues that hacking the USSC is especially pointless, considering how irrelevant the Sentencing Commission is at this point in time.

The first indication that Anonymous made a left turn when it should have made a right was when it picked the United States Sentencing Commission website to show its might. Nobody noticed, because, well, nobody cares about the USSC anymore.

Had this happened a generation ago, it might have meant something. Yesterday, it likely evoked a chuckle and a face palm. Post Booker and some actual crack reforms, it was a big nothing.

Yes, Anonymous is correct in its observation that the so-called "justice system" in the US is a corrupt and bloated entity, prone to abusing its power and control. But the USSC isn't the problem, not because it's the "good guys," but because the damage it can do is easily outweighed by the public's keen interest in sabotaging its own freedoms.

So you guys can hack an outlier agency that has drifted into relative irrelevance. Got it. Have a nice day. The USSC is symbolic of nothing other than government bloat. The guidelines don't enable prosecutors to cheat citizens of their constitutionally guaranteed rights. Citizens do that to each other. We do it each time we elect a legislator who calls for tougher laws. We do it each time we demand the creation of a new crime because of the tragic death of a child. We do it whenever we elevate safety over freedom. And that's what Americans do...

By taking out the USSC website, you disturbed nothing while annoying the government. When the head of the FBI cybersecurity squad gets done laughing, he's going to find someone else to prosecute. It may not be one of you, but it will be someone, or more likely, a whole gang of people with computers. And they have guns. Pissing them off over nothing isn't effective. It's just begging for retaliation, and the government has no sense of humor (or irony).

As much as we sometimes want an entity like Anonymous to strike back at wrongdoers, the likelihood of this action (especially this one) resulting in any positive change remains near zero. Doubly frustrating is the fact that going through the "proper channels" to effect change has the same low odds. The hope here is that this action keeps the focus on the questionable methods and bad laws that resulted in the prosecution Aaron Swartz's and many others.

Considering there are many politicians (and many private contractors) that badly want their worst cyberwar fears to be true, this recent bout of hacktivism may give them all the ammo they want to push damaging legislation through while placing a badly needed CFAA update on the back burner.

This is hardly a surprise given the decade-long history we've gone through concerning the US's attempts to screw over Antigua by violating a trade agreement, and then ignoring, repeatedly, efforts by the WTO to make things right. Given that the WTO gave initial permission for Antigua to set up shop infringing on US intellectual property all the way back in 2007, it appears that Antigua has been nothing but patient. However, last week, it finally started making moves to put this "store" in place.

In response, the US has gone typically ballistic, threatening all sorts of consequences and blaming Antigua for the problems:

The United States warned Antigua and Barbuda on Monday not to retaliate against U.S. restrictions on Internet gambling by suspending American copyrights or patents, a move it said would authorize the "theft" of intellectual property like movies and music.

"The United States has urged Antigua to consider solutions that would benefit its broader economy. However, Antigua has repeatedly stymied these negotiations with certain unrealistic demands," said Nkenge Harmon, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Trade Representative's office.

Of course, what the US claims isn't supported by, well, anyone else. The WTO has now officially signed off (yet again) on the plan. Apparently the 2007 permission was merely "preliminary," but now it's official. The WTO says this is a perfectly legitimate way for Antigua to hit back at the US for its flagrant violation of international trade agreements in trying to shut down Antigua based online gambling sites.

As for Antigua's response to the US threats, the country's legal representative Mark Mendel told Wired (the link above) a bunch of things (go read the whole article), but I think this sums up the key points:

"I do think that the US has a mixed, immature and difficult domestic situation with respect to gambling in general and remote gambling in particular," Mendel told Wired.co.uk. "However, I think the main reason the US has not complied with the WTO rulings is that Antigua is such a small country they think they can get away with it. I also think that, unfortunately, some people in the US government were almost offended that Antigua chose to challenge the US and have been so persistent in its pursuit of justice that the US government has adopted unusually harsh and unyielding lines that have made it difficult to consider our issue in its proper context."

Sounds about right.

A year ago, Mike presented at Midem, discussing how being more open, honest and awesome to the public and to your fans is a recipe for musical success in the internet era. It sounds like an easy concept, but it's one that few do really well. It means connecting with your fans and your public, engaging them positively, responding honestly to inquiries, and generally putting the ego aside and embracing a certain amount of humility.

Or, alternatively, you could go the Richard Marx route, which basically means acting like a self-important psychopath. That's what Edward McClelland at Salon discovered when he did a piece that made a joking reference about Marx.

As I wrote in a story last week on the Morning News, Marx – the Chicago-born singer best known for the 1980s soft-rock hits “Hold On to the Nights” and “Right Here Waiting” – demanded a sit-down with me after I called him “shameless” in a blog post for a local TV station’s news site.

“Would you say that to my face?” he emailed me. “Let’s find out. I’ll meet you anywhere in the city, any time. I don’t travel again until the end of the week. Let’s hash this out like men.”

Now, if you think it's a bit on the crazy side for 1980's ballad singers to go rushing around Chicago to meet up with people who said not nice things on the internet, you're not alone. Even stranger, it would appear that monitoring the interwebz and local papers for critics to respond to is something of a habit for Marx. He referred to one radio producer as a "coward", "jerk" and "douchebag" after he failed to show up for a radio appearance. The producer criticizing him for this qualified as a "pussy move" with Marx. He also was quite public in being upset at WGN-TV for not giving him more air time and told them essentially to go elsewhere if they needed a musical artist for their show in the future. These are but a few examples and, in the age of the internet where these stories will never die, they represent the best way to torpedo any possible chance an artist might have at a career in the future. Then there was his email exchange with a writer for Chicagoist, which was memorialized in a YouTube video:

There's just no reason to behave like this in any case, nevermind in an era where the harm done is multiplied and then refuses to disappear.

Now, in case you should think that my labeling Marx as "crazy" is unfair, take a look at a few samples from the email he sent to McClelland and dared him to post online.

-First, your editor, who’s not named but whose identity I can easily find, is a liar. I’ve never tipped less than 20% in my adult life, and you’re more than invited to call any establishments you think I may patronize to check it out.

-Second, to assume you can crawl inside my head and know what my motivation is for writing a song is arrogance reserved for the likes of Hitler and Stalin.

-The big question is why I give a shit about people like you or the things you write. Even my wife and some friends ask me why I don’t just let certain things go. Here’s my explanation. The internet, Twitter and blogs particularly, are a Utopian breeding ground for cowards. A place for small, frustrated people to spew vile, bitter shit without fearing true retribution. Today, you became the poster-boy for Chickenshit-itis. And for you, as well as anyone else who thinks this is as simple as me being “thin-skinned,” let me make a clear distinction, again…and for the last time: Mock or belittle my music all day long? Go for it. You’re entitled to your opinion. But disparage or call into question my character, and I’ll demand you answer for it.

I have to admit that last one is my favorite. Sadly, it is about being thin-skinned when you feel the need to drive your car from the suburbs into Chicago to meet face to face with some guy you don't know who said something you don't like on the internet -- especially when that "something you don't like" is the barely offensive claim that you are "shameless." More importantly, it shines a light on a psyche that is so desperate for attention and praise that it demands action from those he does not know. I can't take Marx up on his offer to critique his music because, frankly, I've never heard it. Nor have I heard of him prior to this piece coming out.

And that's really the point. For the sake of longevity, acting childish can do amazing things to your career and future opportunities. And I mean amazing the same way that Chernobyl was amazing. While the consequences in the internet era for being awesome are significant, so is the opposite true.

We've talked in the past about DMCA abuse to silence criticism, but it appears that a blogger, who felt wronged by someone who slightly mocked her, took DMCA abuse to new levels and is now facing a lawsuit in response. This case is interesting (and crazy) on a whole bunch of levels, which we'll try to illustrate here. Jackie points us to GetOffMyInternets, which has a pretty good summary of the long series of events that resulted in the lawsuit. Let's start with that summary, and then dig in on a variety of levels. The dispute involves two bloggers who appear to absolutely hate one another, Amy Tuteur and Gina Crosley-Corcoran:

OK, so Gina wrote this post about how she's learned soooooooooo much after being a doula at 20 births.

Dr. Amy responded with this post, basically saying, "If you've learned this much after 20, what do you think you'd learn after a few thousand?" It really wasn't terribly mean, by Dr. Amy standards.

Gina then responded with a photo of herself flipping Dr. Amy the bird, and saying, "I don't want to leave you without something you can take back to your blog and obsess over, so here's a picture of me."

Dr. Amy then wrote about it (and included the photo, which is now gone) in this post.

Gina THEN proceeded to scream "Copyright infringement!!!!" and send Dr. Amy a letter demanding money, which she wrote about in this post. (The letter was originally posted but later deleted.)

Dr. Amy's husband, who is a very big-deal lawyer, wrote back to Gina and told her she didn't have a case. Gina then repeatedly filed DMCA takedown notices to Dr. Amy's host (and then her new one, after she switched hosts), which she detailed here. She also started a legal fund so she could go after Amy. It was VERY clearly an attempt to abuse DMCA in order to shut Amy up. Gina was also encouraging other people to fill out forms saying that Amy had "stolen" (aka quoted, with proper citation) their stories.

Then, Dr. Amy countered with this suit…

Phew! That's a lot of stuff. You can see the actual lawsuit here if you'd like (and it's also embedded below). I will say that prior to getting this, I'd never heard of either of these women, and I have no idea what the real crux of their dispute is about -- though it's quite clear that there's a much bigger history going on between these two women prior to the events listed above. In the post showing the middle finger picture, Gina describes a long history (in, um, snarky terms). Either way, one or both of these women may have wronged the other at some point. I have no idea, nor does it really matter concerning the specific events above.

Reading the blog posts back and forth (which isn't as easy as clicking on the original GOMI links, because Gina has blocked any traffic coming from that site with a message listing two possible reasons you're getting the blocked message -- with the first one being the likely issue: "you clicked on a link to my site from a really, seriously effed up place on the internet, in which case, for real? Why are you hanging around such places? Nevermind, ick, I don't wanna know.") I'm obviously not going to get into the long term fight the two are having over birthing methods or education -- but on the copyright issues, it seems fair to weigh in.

It's pretty clear that Gina way, way, way over-claimed things in her original blog post alleging infringement. She makes it sound as if Dr. Amy is guilty and must pay up, solely based on the accusation. She also claims that because her host has been contacted, they have to take down the content. Neither claim is true or accurate (it's possible she got questionable legal advice here):

By law, Amy now owes me $750 per incident, and up to $30,000. Think twice before stealing things off people's blogs. In case you're wondering, that is a VERY serious offense.... Her host has also been contacted, and by law, they must remove the content.

No, by law, Amy is not required to pay up until a court decides she has to. Also, copyright infringement is not stealing, but that's a whole different fight. As for the host being contact, they do not have to remove the content by law, though there are very strong incentives for them to remove it. Of course, those incentives apply solely to the content in question, and not the rest of her content. However, the host (apparently Bluehost) ridiculously killed the entire account, which Gina celebrated. Celebrating outright censorship through abuse of the DMCA doesn't seem wise. Amusingly, in cheering it on, Gina posted a screenshot of the blog being down, with a giant "protected by DMCA.com" sticker on it -- which is highly questionable. She really does appear to be claiming a copyright over a screenshot of someone else's website (even one that's been taken down). That's also highly questionable -- especially for someone who was just arguing that you shouldn't be "stealing things off people's blogs." And yet, she has no problem taking a screenshot of someone else's blog? Hmm...

As for the use by Amy of Gina's photo... it would appear that she would have a very, very strong fair use claim. She did not just use the photo, but provided significant commentary (again, whose commentary you agree with is meaningless here). Also, as claimed in the lawsuit, Amy argues that Gina's claim that she posted the photo for Amy to "take back to your blog and obsess over" is actually an invitation to repost the image. That last part may be a stretch, but not a completely ridiculous stretch. It just feels like the fair use claims are a lot stronger.

In fact, Gina later talks about her real goal in all of this is to use the threat of a DMCA action to silence Amy. I'm not sure who Gina's lawyer is, but you'd think he or she would tell Gina that flat out admitting publicly that you're seeking to use the DMCA to silence someone who is criticizing you and others is an abuse of the DMCA:

She could owe me statutory damages, but because I'm a fair and reasonable human being, my attorney and I felt it was best to discuss a non-monetary settlement with Amy and her lawyer. I'm not looking to be greedy — I simply wanted a resolution. In exchange for me not pursuing the damages, we wanted Amy to agree to stop personally attacking me. It was that simple.

That is, Gina flat out admits that she used the DMCA as a tool to seek to silence Amy's criticisms. That's not going to go over well in court. And, that's where some of this is playing out.

The lawsuit reveals even more info, including the claim that part of the "settlement" offer was that both Gina and Amy would agree never to discuss each other again in blog posts. It also states that Gina's own attorney admitted during a phone call that there was no legitimate copyright claim, and that they would not be pursuing any actual legal action. Furthermore, it reveals that after Bluehost had received the initial notice, Amy had filed a proper DMCA counternotice.

Next, she notes that in the most recent blog post on this, Gina not only solicited money for a "legal fund" to fight Amy (despite her lawyer apparently already saying they had no legal claim), but also encouraged her readers to "report" other instances of believed "copyright infringement" by Amy. A few days later, Amy got another takedown notice from Gina, directed at her new host, DaringHost (whom Amy had moved her blog to in the middle of all of this). Amy submitted a second counternotice.

Following that, Gina started posting on Facebook excitedly, implying that she was "spending" the "legal fund" to takedown Amy's site on the new host. Furthermore, she noted: "if she keeps on doing what she's doing, this will keep happening," which could certainly be read as a threat to keep sending DMCA notices over and over again.

So.... what's the lawsuit actually about? Amy argues that Gina runs afoul of the infamously weak "misrepresentation" clause in the DMCA (also known as 512(f)). We've discussed just how weak this part of the DMCA is, but if anyone has a case of someone falling on the wrong side of 512(f), this might be the case -- which makes it especially interesting. The filing is pretty clear on how and why Gina's takedown notices were a clear misrepresentation, and that Gina knew or should have known, that they were being filed in bad faith (her own admissions on the blog seem to admit that).

Separately, the filing argues tortious interference with contracts concerning the two hosting companies. The argument is that since the DMCA notices were filed in bad faith, it rises to the level of tortious interference.

If this case actually goes forward, Gina may regret jumping so eagerly into the claims of copyright infringement as the weapon she tried to use to silence a critic. It certainly looks like Amy has a pretty strong argument, given Gina's own statements. Oh, and if you want to see the picture with the middle finger, despite Gina's aggressive claims of "copyright," the image itself was (obviously) included in the actual filing, so it's now a matter of the public record, which you can see below.

Again, I don't care much about the initial and ongoing argument the two are having over birthing methods. I don't know or care who is right (though, it's quite interesting to see the different tones and argument styles used by the two). But, on the copyright front, this one seems like a pretty clear cut case of trying to abuse copyright law to silence a critic, and that's a big no no.

Carmen Ortiz is not having a good month. The US Attorney who was in charge of the ridiculous Aaron Swartz prosecution -- and now has over 50,000 people asking the White House to fire her -- now will have to deal with an official investigation by Congress into that particular case. A bipartisan pair of Congressional representatives, Darrell Issa and Elijah Cummings -- who are basically the top dogs from each party on the House Oversight and Government Reform committee -- have officially kicked off their investigation. They're asking these specific questions:

• What factors influenced the decision to prosecute Mr. Swartz for the crimes alleged in the indictment, including the decisions regarding what crimes to charge and the filing of the superseding indictment?
• Was Mr. Swartz's opposition to SOPA or his association with any advocacy groups among the factors considered'?
• What specific plea offers were made to Mr. Swartz, and what factors influenced the decisions by prosecutors regarding plea offers made to Mr. Swartz?
• How did the criminal charges, penalties sought, and plea offers in this case compare to those of other cases that have been prosecuted or considered for prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act?
• Did the federal investigation of Mr. Swartz reveal evidence that he had committed other hacking violations?
• What factors influenced the Department's decisions regarding sentencing proposals?
• Why was a superseding indictment necessary?

Combine these with the questions already sent by Senator Cornyn, and the DOJ is going to be busy.

But, of course, that's not all that is weighing on Carmen Ortiz. Last week, we noted, she lost a highly questionable case in which it appears she tried to seize a family-owned motel based on some trumped up charges concerning drug deals, even though there weren't that many drug problems there (less than others in the area) and the owners of the motel had worked with law enforcement to try to crack down on them.

And... that's not all. Today there's news of an even bigger embarrassment as it appears that Ortiz had to go to court to admit that her office arrested the wrong man in a gang takedown a few weeks ago. Basically, her office is coming to the conclusion -- weeks later -- that one of the guys arrested may just look like the guy they wanted.

In the latest setback for Boston’s beleaguered U.S. attorney, red-faced feds admit they may have arrested the wrong man during a massive gang and drug takedown two weeks ago because he looked like someone they wanted, after they were forced to tell a judge there was “sufficient doubt” that he was the suspect.

How many screw-ups do you get to make and keep such a job?

Prenda Law seems to be the gift that keeps on giving if you're writing about absolutely ridiculous attempts at copyright trolling. If 2012 was the year of Righthaven as the representative of brazen, hubristic, bullshit copyright trolling getting its due, 2013 looks to be the year of John Steele / Prenda Law (or whatever he's calling it these days). It is clearly going above and beyond what Righthaven only dreamed about. The latest is that Prenda has sought out yet another questionable loophole in trying to force ISPs to hand over subscriber info without having to first go to court. It's using a misreading of a Pennsylvania state law to do so (it's tried a similar move under a Florida state law, which flopped). However, as the good folks at FightCopyrightTrolls have noticed, the argument it's using in Pennsyvania has failed in the past as well. And not just that the general argument has failed but the specific, word-for-word argument. That's because Prenda or its local-lawyer-for-hire, Isaac Slepner, appears to have copied word for word (and stylistically too!) a filing for Liberty Media (represented by Jordan Rushie), and simply slapping the Prenda shell company Guava's name at the top. Rushie confirmed with FCT that he had nothing whatsoever to do with this new filing.

Plagiarism and copyright infringement are not quite the same thing -- and there have been discussions of whether or not you can really infringe on copying a legal filing (it happens often enough, though usually in snippets, rather than wholesale). Not that anyone took Steele's claims of "protecting" copyright seriously, but it really says something when the law firm billing itself as protecting against piracy chooses to copy top to bottom someone else's legal filing. Check out both filings below.

We recently wrote about a series of cases where young computer hackers were either charged or threatened with criminal charges for doing things that don't seem particularly criminal at all. The NY Times now has a blog post on more or less the same subject, but focusing on the "fuzzy and shifting line between hacker and criminal." While it's good that more attention is getting paid to these kinds of questionable cases, I wonder if that framing is really accurate. I don't think there's a "line" -- fuzzy, shifting or not -- between "hacker" and "criminal." The two things are different. Can you be a criminal hacker? Sure. But the problem is that many non-techie folks seem to assume that any kind of hacking must be criminal. And that's the problem. It's not that some imaginary line is moving around, but that some people don't seem to understand that hacking itself is not criminal, and that there are plenty of good reasons to hack -- including to expose security holes.

Since we've learned of the plan for so-called Six Strikes programs by ISPs, there has been protest and warnings from multiple sources about multiple issues. Accordingly, Daily Dot has a nice little piece about what sort of unintended consequences we can expect to come out of this plan. A couple of them are well-traveled ground here at Techdirt, including whether businesses will still offer WiFi when "pirates" naturally flock there to carry out their piratey actions. Likewise, we've discussed the importance of the Open Wireless movement, which will certainly take a massive hit if and when these ISP plans are spun up. All that being said, the third unintended consequence mentioned in the article is probably the most important, since it will render all of this an exercise in futility: greater adoption of privacy tools by the masses.

According to comments Lesser made at an Internet Society meeting in November 2012, the definition of who the CAS is after is extremely narrow, at least for its planned first iteration. It only tracks those who upload the most-popular copyrighted content, like blockbuster movies and best-selling albums, via the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent, and it only identifies them by their Internet protocol (IP) addresses. That's it. So pirates who can avoid BitTorrent, or peer-to-peer altogether, or download without uploading (a major faux pas on some torrent sites), or hide their IP addresses, will avoid detection.

Learning to conceal one’s IP address is already a major point of Internet activism, for reasons that have nothing to do with piracy. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, for instance, suggests bloggers in dangerous parts of the world hide their IP addresses to ensure their anonymity from authoritarian governments.

In other words, these plans will spark an interest in privacy tools designed to get around the "strikes". It's an arms race that essentially cannot be won, because every new tactic simply spurs the growth of interest in counter-tactics and probably leaves the average computer user even more prepared for the next attempt than they would have been otherwise. This type of thing likely creates tech-saavy people where there previously would have been none. Meanwhile, businesses and WiFi device owners will close off access out of fear.

Torrent Freak backs this key point up, noting how few bittorrent users are currently masking their IP addresses and making the case that that number is going to jump after Six Strikes begins.

BitTorrent proxies and VPN services are the preferred way for people to remain anonymous while downloading. These services replace a user’s home IP-address with one provided by the proxy service, making it impossible for tracking companies to identify who is doing the file-sharing. In the U.S. 16% of all file-sharers already hide their IP-address, and this is likely to increase when the copyright alert system goes live.

What's missing from all of this is exactly how any of these plans are going to get previous "pirates" to turn into paying customers for media companies. History suggests they will not do so, will not curb piracy, and will in fact only annoy people who like open WiFi connections and prepare users for the next round of the race all the more. If there were a more perfect definition of a plan that achieves nothing except collateral damage than 6 strikes legislation, I cannot imagine what it'd be.

UPDATE:

According to EA's representatives, this ban was the unfortunate result of a gitch in their system which banned several members who had opted out of receiving email from EA. Full response posted below:

Hi Puppier,

I made a post in reply on both imgur and your reddit post, but I just wanted you to know that we've lifted your ban on AHQ. As you know, the system is sending out a lot of emails and it looks like you opted out of receiving mails from us, which for some reason is banning users. There's a few posts on it, for example here http://answers.ea.com/t5/Technical-Problems/Problem-with-Answer-HQ-banned-because-I-tried-to-stop-getting/m-p/419214/highlight/true#M1430. It's not the biggest thread, but it's the first I could get to.

The team is working to fix the bug, but in the interim I actually have one member sitting scanning our logs for anyone that opts out, so we can unban them as quickly as possible.

Apologies again - as you mentioned. There's a lot of similar feedback to yours that hasn't been removed from the forums and the authors banned.

Feel free to give me a shout with any other feedback you have. I'll personally make sure it gets to the right people to make up for the annoyance.

Cheers,
Chris.

 

Electronic Arts makes some very popular games and some very respected games, but for the past few years, it's been finding itself at the top of Consumerist's annual "Worst Company in America" list. And for good reason.

A few weeks back, we discussed EA's upcoming SimCity game, which is going to be crippled by an always-on DRM scheme masquerading as online multiplayer. Some unsuspecting SimCity developers fired up an AMA (Ask Me Anything), only to find themselves trying in vain to defend a system that maintains your save state online, rather than locally. In addition to "stopping" piracy, this "feature" helps "extend gameplay" by forcing you to redo your moves should sunspots or whatever occur. The Redditors, needless to say, ate them alive and sent their remains back with a message for their bosses: drop the DRM or you won't be seeing our money.

EA, of course, cares not for little things like angry potential customers or, for that matter, being a company people trust and respect. For every step forward, it has taken giant leaps backwards. Just recently, it held a closed beta to do some last-minute bug testing on the new SimCity. All well and good, except that it threatened to ban users from all EA games should they fail to report a bug.

“It is understood and agreed that, as part of your participation in the Beta Program, it is your responsibility to report all known bugs, abuse of ‘bugs’, ‘undocumented features’ or other defects and problems related to the Game and Beta Software to EA as soon as they are found (‘Bugs’). If you know about a Bug or have heard about a Bug and fail to report the Bug to EA, we reserve the right to treat you no differently from someone who abuses the Bug. You acknowledge that EA reserve the right to lock anyone caught abusing a Bug out of all EA products.”

This went over about as well as any banhammer reliant on proving a negative -- the uproar began moments thereafter, leading EA to walk back this threat within 24 hours. EA released this incredulous, self-serving statement that basically said it was shocked (shocked!) that anyone would suggest it would perma-ban its potential customers.

“We have never taken away access to a player’s games for not reporting a bug, and quite simply it’s not something we would ever do… The clause in the EA Beta Agreement for the SimCity beta was intended to prohibit players from using known exploits to their advantage. However, the language as included is too broad. We are now updating the Beta Agreement to remove this point.”

Uh-huh. Nothing you would ever do now that you've been caught.

But EA's not done wielding the banhammer, as one Redditor attempting to login to the beta discovered over the weekend. After waiting over three hours for the software to authenticate, he posted a very valid, very tame and very constructive bit of criticism to their forums. (Original post via Google cache here.)

Back during the Steam Summer Sale, Ubisoft's always-online DRM servers encounter countless errors the inhibited people from playing the game (Story). This is one of several issues game publishers have suffered after having always-online DRM (other than the general player irritation). Although it is annoying that we have to have multiplayer and be online for a single-player game, technical issues also arise, because servers will, inevitably go down at some point.

Frankly, I wouldn't mind being always online if it weren't for all the technical complications, I have purchased the game and as long as I can play it, I'm good. But that is not the case. Instead we wait through countless errors and server delays in order to play the game. If these kind of issues exist during a closed beta, imagine the delays during the actual launch and the days after. Blizzard suffered the same fate after the launch of a Diablo 3 patch (Story).

The repercussions of this? Bad ratings. Although Diablo 3 received generally favorable critic scores, the players rated it at only 3.8/10 (Source). Although you will of course, have buyers, there is always someone dedicated enough to play a game, no matter the costs, bad ratings will turn away even the most dedicated players. And if the issues seen in the closed Beta servers (I've been waiting 45 minutes to log in already and others have been waiting much longer) remain during the official launch, the ratings will undoubtedly suffer. Although I have always been a huge SimCity fan, I am beginning to question whether I will buy this game, and as a result these ratings will decide whether myself and many others will spend our money on SimCity.

As I said, I would be able to tolerate SimCity's always-online DRM if it worked. But from the way it looks right now, it doesn't. If you are not willing to pour enough money into getting large amounts of log in and authentication servers, please remove the always online or add a way for us to play offline in only-offline cities. Other wise, you will turn away large groups of buyers and also large amounts of money.

Although you are trying to prevent piracy, which is something I am firmly am against (piracy), you have caught normal and legal players in the crossfire. The easiest (and best) way to prevent piracy is make a better game. If you make the game accessible and easier to play, you will attract more people into purchasing it. If you don't, you will turn away players and give people "reasons" to pirate your games. I am willing to spend money on SimCity if it is good, many others feel the same way. Don't ruin our dedication by putting us in the crossfire of your "war on piracy".

If you get your authentications servers not simply adequate, but also above and beyond what is necessary, more and more players will buy and enjoy your game. However you must also weigh the benefits. Even if you make a small amount of extra money by instituting an always-online policy, you will have to keep spending money to keep these authentication servers up. This may, in the long run, negate the amount of money you gained from the policy. So make sure you are ready to have servers and keep servers, otherwise you will be in for a lot of trouble.

Thank you,
Puppier

To most people, this would seem like a valid complaint that makes several good points. One, sacrificing your customer base on the altar of piracy prevention seldom makes sense, especially considering the pirated version will be free of all the issues plaguing the paying players. Two, if you can't balance server loads on a closed beta, how on earth are you planning to handle launch day? Considering SimCity will be online only, you'd think EA would have its server issues at a minimum. Paying customers aren't going to be very happy with a $50-60 piece of software that does nothing more than attempt to authenticate for hours on end. All in all, a thoughtful post that highlights what exactly is wrong with the DRM EA has built into the software.

Here's EA's reply. No email. No answer in the forums. Just this.
 

(In case you can't read the fine print, it says "We're sorry, but you have been banned from using this site.")

If EA's wondering how it could have outmaneuvered Bank of America in a race to the bottom, reputation-wise, it needs look no further than this. When an entertainment company is chosen by 64% of 250,000 voters as being worse than an entity that doubled its customers' interest rates for no apparent reason and allegedly cost taxpayers more than $1 billion when it sold toxic mortgages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, there's a serious flaw in that company's relationship with its customers.

Callous actions like this only serve to further cement EA's reputation as one of the worst companies in America. Legitimate complaints should never result in banning. Even if EA isn't interested in hearing the downside of its "always-on" DRM, it should at least have the broad shoulders to take the criticism without behaving like thin-skinned thug.

We recently wrote about how Kim Dotcom has retained famed human rights lawyer Robert Amsterdam to explore whether or not there's a human rights angle to his case, specifically alleging "contract prosecution" by the entertainment industry. I'm still somewhat skeptical that such an argument could go anywhere, but Amsterdam himself has put up a rather detailed blog post, explaining why he's taking the case, which may seem quite different than his usual fare: taking on corruption and human rights violations in far flung parts of the world, including Africa and Latin America. After highlighting the many problems with the case (and the continued failures in court to date), as well as the close ties prosecutor Neil MacBride has with big copyright holders, he points out that he sees some serious similarities to what's happening here with the kind of corruption he's witnessed in third world nations.

This case highlights not only the issue of “state capture” by the Hollywood lobby, but at the same time should lead to a thoughtful discussion on how we define corruption. No one would venture to allege that there is any form of cash payment taking place when official bodies appear to act at the behest of special interests motives. Because that’s not how these groups work.

It is a demonstration of the growing ambiguity of the lines between regulators and the regulated, and the proper role of intellectual property in the digital age. As we’ve seen in the sad and tragic case of Aaron Swartz, for whom Prosecutor Carmen Ortiz was seeking 13 criminal charges and more than 50 years in jail, the American justice system is increasingly flawed by this prosecutorial exuberance aimed at future political reward.

It is one thing when the victims of these abuses are American citizens, who live at the whim of an unaccountable prosecutorial machine driven by personal political ambitions and an appetite for headlines. It is something else entirely when these prosecutors visit their ambitions upon foreign citizens, charging them with heinous crimes with no basis under law, even if that person has never once set foot inside the United States (like Kim Dotcom).

That is, he appears to be aware of the nature of corruption laundering that's going on -- using the close connection between big businesses and governments to create laws where people can make the case that cracking down on some behavior is necessary to stop crime, but where the details show it's really about cracking down on competition and innovation.

And, he notes, this sort of activity is a huge stain on the US and the federal government:

With this attempt to “colonize” the global internet under U.S. laws, Washington is quickly making a bad name for itself, and putting its considerable influence on the wrong side of digital rights, free markets, and competitive innovation. They do this in the name of protecting a broken business model, subsidizing monopolies, and seeking to destroy crucial online functions instead of adapting to the incredible opportunity afforded to them through mass connectivity. We deserve better, we can do better, and everyone can benefit from a more reasonable approach focused on the best interests of the public, not the best interests of lobbyists and the politicians in their pockets.

We see this as a grand ideological debate with far-reaching implications, and sadly, my lengthy experience in countries where special interests control the levers of power may have some utility here.

Even if there isn't a legal human rights angle, it should be interesting to see what Amsterdam turns up. This growing recognition of how laws are created to benefit legacy players, and then used against innovators, is a real problem. Shining more light on that would be tremendously helpful in actually promoting important innovations.

One of the more epic IP battles has come to an end. Mattel (Barbie) and MGA Entertainment (Bratz), have spent most of a decade in various courtrooms hashing out the ultra-serious question about which of these companies is entitled to the Bratz millions.

Long story short, a former Mattel employee left the company and crafted one of the first serious threats to Barbie's dominance, the Bratz dolls. Mattel, of course, was none too happy because the designer was still employed by Mattel when he came up with the idea. Mattel felt it owned the idea and sued the designer in an effort to make that a reality. From that point on it went from bad to worse to farcical. At one point, the court ordered MGA to turn over all future plans for the Bratz line... which was then reversed... which was reversed by a lower court... which was re-reversed by the original court. This led to counterclaims flying from both directions and the last we had heard, Mattel, which had originally filed the suit, was being hit with a judgment for $309 million in damages, including MGA's court fees. Adding that together with Mattel's legal expenses, and this fight over dolls put Mattel on the hook for nearly $700 million.

Now, it appears the fight is finally over. And, like many long legal battles, the lawyers are the only ones coming out ahead.

The long-running IP war between Mattel Inc. and MGA Entertainment Inc. over the Bratz line of dolls has ended — for now — with zero damages.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Thursday laid waste to Bratz maker MGA's $170 million trade secret award — an award procured on retrial after the appeals court wiped out Barbie maker Mattel's $100 million copyright verdict and constructive trust.

But MGA gets the last laugh. The Ninth Circuit left untouched $137 million in attorney fees and costs awarded to MGA for defending against Mattel's copyright claims.

Yes, the old truism (that I made up right now) "The only true winner in our legal system is MGA's lawyers" is proven once again in this case specifically. MGA won't be collecting any damages but at least its legal team lives on to fight another day -- possibly tomorrow, from the sound of its sore winner statement:

CEO Isaac Larian promised to retry the company's trade secret claims to a new jury. "We are confident that when the second jury hears about Mattel's sneaking into our showrooms and egregious theft of scores of our secrets over the years, they will be even more appalled than the first jury and award MGA even greater damages," he said in the statement.

Mattel has fired back with about the only silver lining retort available after spending nearly 8 years in court: the statute of limitations. The court basically agrees with Mattel's half-defiant, half-white flag statement, ruling that MGA's counterclaim (the one that had originally awarded it $170 million in damages) was time-barred and by no means "compulsory."

This hasn't stopped MGA from proudly declaring this "windfall" (which will all be going right back in its lawyers' pockets) to be the "largest fee and cost award in a copyright infringement case in US history." True, it's better than coming out of the battle stuck with the legal bill, but this misplaced joie de vivre makes it seem as though MGA will be presenting the award to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in the form of an oversized novelty check in front of gathered members of the sympathetic press and assorted minor local politicians.

As YouTube becomes more and more popular as a primary entertainment resource, it is going to have many of the same growing pains as traditional entertainment venues. If it can ever get past its "internet problems", it can move on to having actual entertainment issues. This means far more fun problems, like agents screwing young stars out of money, networks building contract language to screw young stars out of their artistic freedom, and lawyers threatening to enforce exclusive contracts to screw young stars out of their lives. Are you noticing a theme here? It's going to become increasingly important that formerly amateur YouTube stars read the contracts they sign with a growing number of upstart "YouTube Networks" very carefully, or else they are going to face situations such as we're seeing with Machinima stars, who are shutting down production because they're locked into lifetime and beyond contracts with the multi-channel network.

Vacas, known online as Braindeadly, has big brown eyes, a fauxhawk, a stubbly goatee and a British accent, discernible as he tells his 40,000 YouTube subscribers goodbye.

"I woke up today hoping to make a video, but I went into a call with Machinima this evening and they said that my contract is completely enforceable. I can't get out of it," Vacas tells the camera. "They said I am with them for the rest of my life — that I am with them forever. If I'm locked down to Machinima for the rest of my life and I've got no freedom, then I don't want to make videos anymore," he says quietly.

The screen fades to black.

Ominous, but not entirely unexpected. Those who make their bones on YouTube and any other new platform that might arise aren't going to have traditional avenues for making sure they know what they're signing. In the case of Vacas, he admits to this explicitly, later stating that he signed his Machinima contract quickly, not realizing they would own the rights to anything he produced on YouTube "in perpetuity, throughout the universe, in all forms of media now known or hereafter devised." Even death would not release Vacas of his contractual obligations. It sucks, but he signed it.

The point is that in these early days of YouTube channel capitalization, artists need to be very wary of sharks swimming in those waters. As the article points out, this isn't really new, it's just a different venue.

A recent string of high-profile disputes is prompting comparisons between YouTube networks and the exploitative Hollywood studios of the 1930s and '40s: Both convinced young and naive talent with little leverage to sign contracts that leave them at a disadvantage. For networks, that means contracts that bind creators to them indefinitely, demand rights to their content in perpetuity and take large ownership stakes in any resulting businesses.

As ugly as some of these contracts are, as are the intentions of those that wrote them, this should end up working itself out as YouTube matures as a primary entertainment platform. After all, Machinima can have all the dastardly contractual language it likes, but if the artists like Vacas refuse to produce in protest, what good does that do them? Eventually, a middle ground should and will be found. In the past, if you didn't like the contract offered to you by a major gatekeeper, you were pretty much out of luck. Today, however, not only are there more providers, but it's not difficult to "go it alone" if you choose such a path.