This probably isn't a huge surprise, but Judge Lucy Koh has basically decided not to do anything at all about the various attempts by both Samsung and Apple to change the overall impact of the initial jury ruling. That is, she rejected Samsung's call for a new trial or to overturn the jury's findings. She also rejected Samsung's attempt to invalidate some of the patents. On Apple's side, she rejected Apple's request to pump up the award amount for "willful" infringement, claiming that there's no evidence that Samsung's actions were willful, since it showed evidence of why it really believed that there was prior art invalidating Apple's key patents. Oh yeah, and then there's this lovely sentence:

Given that Apple has not clearly shown how it has in fact been undercompensated for the losses it has suffered due to Samsung’s dilution of its trade dress, this Court, in its discretion, does not find a damages enhancement to be appropriate.

To paraphrase: "the jury basically handed you a billion dollars, and you're still complaining?!?" All of this, of course, was just the appetizer. Now we move on to the appeals process, meaning we've probably got a few more years of this to deal with, unless the two sides decide to shut up and settle.

The internet is filled with strange memes, but a recurring theme seems to be asking a simple question about "who would win in a fight?" given various outrageous scenarios. Here are just a few amusing examples.

• President Obama was asked a question on Reddit: "Would you rather fight 100 duck-sized horses or one horse-sized duck?" Read up on the probable abilities of an enormous duck... because this question is bound to come up again (and again and again on Reddit). [url]
• "How many 5 year-olds could you take on at once?" was a question brought up a few years ago that got a bunch of people (mostly guys) thinking about how tough kindergarteners are. Generally, the answer should be approximately one or two times your weight's worth of 5yo's, depending on how athletic you are. [url]
• In a fight between a polar bear and a shark -- which animal would win? So far, there's evidence that a shark has actually eaten a polar bear, but that's not proof because the shark could have eaten a dead polar bear. [url]

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

Last summer, we wrote about some of the bizarre happenings at TuneCore, a very cool and useful service that has helped more musicians actually make money than probably any other service out there, ever. It basically became the de facto standard for musicians who wanted to get their music into the various top digital music stores. TuneCore was founded by Jeff Price -- who is known for being opinionated and not afraid to share his opinion. This rubs some people the wrong way, but even when I've disagreed with Jeff, I've always found him to be completely genuine in his singular belief that the most important thing to him was to help artists as much as possible. Many people who have dealt with TuneCore over the years quickly realized that Jeff was the driving vision and heart behind the company. However, last summer, he was pushed out under questionable circumstances with no explanation from the company or its board (who has maintained a pretty uniform wall of silence).

Over the last few days, it seems that more has developed, which raises some serious questions about the priorities of TuneCore management and its board. What has become clear (and confirmed from multiple sources) is that TuneCore's lawyer from the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers, contacted Price to say that it was "investigating" whether or not he had "faked" a $500 invoice from a trip. Apparently, the invoice came from a bed and breakfast that Price stayed at because it was cheaper than a hotel, and where he paid cash, because the operator of the BnB offered a discount that way. TuneCore's lawyer is arguing that no legitimate lodging would send a Microsoft Word document as an invoice -- and thus, he must be faking it. One wonders just how much TuneCore is spending on its lawyers to "investigate" a single invoice for a $500 reimbursement.

The situation led TuneCore co-founder Peter Wells to send every shareholder at the company an email arguing that this was a ridiculous move, a waste of time and money and clearly just an attempt to embarrass or intimidate Jeff. It also raises serious questions about TuneCore's priorities at the moment. Is it about serving artists, or about attacking their founder and fired CEO Jeff Price? The full letter Peter sent is included at the bottom of this post, but this key line is the important one: "We at TuneCore ask artists to trust us with their music, their money and their relationships with iTunes and Amazon and more. How can we ask them to trust us if we act like this towards our own?"

As I was trying to learn more about the details behind all of this, the other shoe dropped. The third co-founder of the company, and the only remaining co-founder still employed by TuneCore was fired earlier today, with some believing it was some sort of retaliation for Peter's email to the shareholders, and as the company continues to try to maintain a wall of silence.

Jeff Price, too, is upset about this whole situation. He told me that his main concern is that this whole thing is a distraction for the company, and that he feels he has "an obligation to the artists to have TuneCore reach its potential." He also noted that the fact that the company is focusing on this is "heartbreaking" before going on to note:

The idiocy here is beyond me. It just makes me so sad. I get called out for being on a company business trip where I saved the company money. It's just so strange. I don't get it. Why is the company spending its money this way? What's the end game? How does this benefit the company? If they're capable of doing this to me, what are they doing for artists?

As for the supposed "faked" invoice, I've got an email from the woman who runs the bed and breakfast, explaining that she rents out her place via AirBnB, and that for "return guests" that they liked, they would often just deal in cash with invoices (which they report as income) and charge a slightly lower rate (I assume to save on the AirBnB fees). She confirms Jeff stayed and that while a Word doc is not very "formal" -- it is legitimate. Thus, it appears that this was, indeed, a case of Jeff saving TuneCore money.

Others -- including shareholders and customers of TuneCore -- are speaking out, and many are quite concerned about the direction of the company. Gian Caterine, who for years was TuneCore's CFO was incredulous about the accusations against Jeff and quite worried about the future of the company itself. Regarding the idea that Jeff might fudge a $500 bed and breakfast invoice, Gian found that to be "ridiculous."

Jeff is the "king of coach." He's such a frugal guy. Of all the criticisms you could have about Jeff, stealing $500 is not on that list. It's ridiculous.

But his much larger concern was what all of this meant for the company.

It looks like the company has lost its path. There's no one left at TuneCore that has any meaningful background in music. Jeff was always the spokesperson for musicians' values. There's no evidence that the company has any vision, and I can only see this leading to a loss of credibility among artists.... There's a big, big issue with vision and leadership now. They have not articulated a vision and there's no one with the necessary experience left to help.... I don't know if it's ignorance or arrogance, but the damage is pretty severe.

Rather than pointing fingers at Jeff, they need to get on with it. The whole situation leads me to believe that there's something really wrong that has nothing to do with Jeff.

Another shareholder, Joel Morowitz, who helped co-found Jeff's previous company, the indie label SpinArt, was similarly angry about the attack on Jeff and what it meant for TuneCore.

Personally, and as a shareholder, I am absolutely disgusted by these allegations against Jeff. It reeks of desperation and diversion. I have known Jeff for over 30 years, and while no person is perfect, I can personally attest to his high ethical standards, especially with regard to his tenure at Tunecore. More than anyone, you know how much time and effort he put into it. And now, after building Tunecore into the undisputed leader in the field, and quite literally, changing the model of the music industry, they now shout "lack of confidence" and "mismanagement"!? It just doesn't wash...and they know it. They have never been forthcoming about Jeff's termination.

He further pointed out that having a law firm investigate a $500 reimbursement is nothing more than "wasting valuable time and resources," questioning just how much the law firm was charging for such an investigation: "the sum of the bill is most likely far greater than the amount being disputed." Again, he is at a loss as to why there's this focus on attacking Jeff:

I am so saddened that this situation has devolved into a stalemate. Instead of focusing on the continued growth and diversification of Tunecore, they have chosen to turn this into a battle against Jeff. It is abundantly clear that whatever the real reasons are for Jeff's termination, Tunecore has been on the decline since his departure. Jeff was certainly not without controversy in the public eye, but no visionary CEO ever is. He was the clearly best person for the job. What do we have now?....a company with no vision, no direction, low morale, and most importantly, no effective leadership.

I've also been speaking to a few TuneCore's customers, who have expressed similar concerns. Andy Richards, who notes that he was TuneCore's 23rd customer way back in the beginning after randomly finding them online, notes that Jeff always struck him as "an extremely driven and passionate entrepreneur, but above all, a music fan who truly respected the artists with whom he worked." Furthermore, he notes that he's still on TuneCore, and hasn't seen any direct changes yet, but he's "definitely keeping an eye on things and will jump ship if I don't like what I see."

Disputes between startup management and investors is nothing new. We see it in the startup world all the time. Sometimes it does just make sense to bring in new management, but for companies built around driven and visionary CEOs, such changes can be quite problematic, especially when they leave a complete void where the vision used to be. The fact that TuneCore now seems focused on simplistic and petty disputes about a $500 reimbursement -- even to the point of accusing Jeff of having faked the invoice seems to raise serious questions about just what the company is focused on these days.

Over the past few days, I've reached out to every single board member at TuneCore, along with key remaining members of the management team. I've heard nothing from the board. However, just as I was about to go to press with this story, I heard from a PR person (he apparently leads the "crisis communications" team at his PR firm) who told me that he didn't think this was a matter that the press should be concerned with as it's a "private" issue. He then issued a further statement:

Tunecore focuses on its core business of helping artists reach their fans and consumers. It is expanding into Japan, Canada and on campuses, and has several exciting initiatives on the horizon which will increase its value to its artists/customers. The matter of the dispute is one more appropriately handled behind closed doors with the parties’ attorneys, and if necessary, in a courtroom. It is not for public consumption, nor does it have any bearing on its work toward its core mission.

The company offered no comment at all on Gary Burke being fired, saying there was nothing to say on the matter.

Again, disputes between management and investors are a common plotline in the startup world. But this one seems particularly messy, and unfortunate, given the large role that Price and his cofounders played in turning TuneCore into such a large player in the space.

Well, if it wasn't clear before, it's certainly official now. Unwired Planet (formerly Openwave), a former innovator in the WAP browser field, decided back in April that it was no longer interested in competing in the marketplace. Instead, it set the dials to "troll" and announced a new "corporate strategy," one that would punish actual innovators for innovating. CEO Mike Mulica announced a "multi-pronged strategy to realize the value of [Unwired Planet's] unique patent portfolio."

Now, an aider and abettor has thrown Unwired Planet 2,185 additional trolling devices.

Last week, Unwired Planet, a patent licensing company that once upon a time was an Internet services company called Openwave, announced a deal to acquire a portfolio of 2,185 U.S. and international patents and patents pending from Ericsson.

The company said the deal “significantly broaden[s] Unwired Planet’s Mobile Internet-focused portfolio,” including 753 U.S. issued patents related to 2G, 3G and LTE technologies. Ericsson will also contribute 100 additional patent annually to Unwired Planet from 2014 through 2018. Terms call for Unwired Planet to compensate Ericsson with certain ongoing rights in future revenues generated from the enlarged patent portfolio. Unwired Planet will also grant Ericsson a license to the Company’s enlarged patent portfolio.

In other words, Ericsson will profit from any litigation or settlements Unwired Planet manages to extract from tech companies. Pretty good money, if you don't mind being part of the problem. Mulica was on hand again to put lipstick on the troll-pig with plenty of words that dance around the shakedown-and-sue "business model" Unwired is calling a "corporate strategy" these days.

Unwired Planet CEO Mike Mulica said in a statement that his company looks forward to “leveraging a strong, multi-dimensional patent portfolio and furthering discussions with key industry players who are interested in licensing these inventions to protect and further build their product strategies.”

Well, just replace "leveraging" with "exploiting" and "furthering discussions" with "shakedown letters" and "interested in" with "forced to" and we've got ourselves a sentence! For that matter, let's replace "protect and further build" with "tentatively move forward in a highly litigious atmosphere, infested with tapeworms sporting UP/E logos."

The costs inflicted by the new hybrid tapeworm will, of course, be passed on to the end users in the form of increased costs, fewer innovations and East Texan accents. Ericsson will receive, in exchange for patents covering a broad swath of "telecommunications infrastructure" (and part of its soul reputation), 20% of the first $100 million, increasing to 70% should Unwired be able to hit the $500 million mark. Unwired has already fired an opening salvo in the direction of Apple and Google, so the sky's the theoretical limit.

In addition, America itself will be blessed with several million more reasons for newly minted lawyers to embrace the patent field, which despite the best (but still very poorly done) efforts of the US government, still offers a good chance to make big money by doing little more than spamming successful companies with threatening letters. 

Remember when Conan O'Brien joked around with Samsung about their copying the Apple Store look...only for Samsung to open up a store that looked an awful lot like an Apple Store in Australia. Well, that kind of thing ain't going to fly anymore, folks, now that the USPTO has granted Apple a trademark on the design of their retail stores.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Apple's request last week for trademarks on the minimalist design and layout of its retail outlets, the office's records show. The description of the trademarks includes "a clear glass storefront surrounded by a paneled facade" and, within the store, an "oblong table with stools...set below video screens flush mounted on the back wall."

"The million dollar question in this instance, as in pretty much all trade dress cases, is just how close a competitor can come to the design without infringing," [Christopher] Sprigman said.

Another day, another story of questionable activity on behalf of copyright troll Prenda Law in regards to Alan Cooper. As you may recall, Alan Cooper, who was employed as a house caretaker for copyright troll John Steele (of Prenda Law, though at times he denies this), raised some concerns with the court in a few cases involving some mysterious shell companies -- AF Holdings and Ingenuity 13. At issue: the CEO named in the court papers for those companies was named Alan Cooper, and caretaker Alan Cooper believed that Steele or others at Prenda had faked his identity, as he had nothing to do with any of it. While Cooper has since sued Prenda and John Steele, this issue showed up in some other cases.

In one case involving Ingenuity 13, Prenda was represented by lawyer Brett Gibbs. Opposing lawyer Morgan Pietz asked Gibbs to confirm whether or not Ingenuity 13's Alan Cooper was a different Alan Cooper than Steele's caretaker, leading to a ridiculous conversation in which Gibbs played dumb and refused to answer the simple question. Pietz than took the issue to the court, who ordered Gibbs to answer some questions about Cooper. Gibbs' response was to claim that the judge should be thrown off the case for bias. Since that failed, Gibbs has moved onto the next strategy.

Simply try to walk away. He filed a notice saying he was dismissing the case (though he could file it again at some point). Effectively, he's trying to cut and run before having to answer those questions about Alan Cooper. Of course, in a situation where he should be trying to get out of court as quietly as possible, he chose, instead, to give the judge the equivalent of the middle finger: whining that he was dropping the case because the judge had made it "futile" to continue.

Plaintiff maintains its contention that it is factually impossible to identify a John Doe through an IP address without obtaining ISP subscriber information; as such, Plaintiff now dismisses this action without prejudice in order to avoid the futility of attempting to litigate these cases under such circumstances.

Of course, that's got nothing to do with anything. Gibbs appears to not want to answer the questions. Unfortunately, he may not be so lucky. After the case was already dismissed, the judge ordered a status report, and a future conference, concerning the questions raised by Pietz.

As a lawyer explained to the Fight Copyright Trolls site, it appears that, while the judge can't stop the case from being closed, he can still continue this line of exploration:

...the Judge retains authority/jurisdiction as to all remaining collateral issues such as sanctions as well as potential inappropriate conduct of counsel/parties. I believe that since the discovery order was issued after the dismissal, it is likely that the Court sees the dismissal as potentially motivated to hide inappropriate conduct or even perjury etc… Technically the judge could still allow discovery on the Alan Cooper issue or even order Gibbs or Steele or even “Alan Cooper” to appear and testify. If they refuse, the court can invoke its plenary contempt power. That’s when the ____ hits the fan.

We'll see where this goes, but Gibbs trying to sneak out on answering the questions, while at the same time whining about it to the judge, just seems to be him asking for trouble.

We've talked about the fact that the whole "generic top level domain" (gTLD) process was hopelessly corrupt, as it was more or less driven by those who sought to profit from the system -- folks who ran (or hoped to run) domain registration offerings. And, the entire thing seemed based around getting a ridiculous amount of money to launch these new TLDs and then run around convincing companies they need to pay up for new domains before someone else snaps them up.

However, now it's looking like it isn't just the idea that's a disaster, but the execution as well. Domain Incite's Kevin Murphy reports that ICANN's own CEO (who only joined recently), Fadi Chehade, has flat out admitted that they're nowhere close to ready, but things are going to launch anyway. David Mitnick has pulled out some of the key quotes that should be fairly scary, considering they're coming from ICANN's own CEO:

1. "Honestly, if it was up to me, I would delay the whole release of new gTLDs by at least a year."

2. "... a lot of the foundations that I would be comfortable with, as someone who has built businesses before, are just not yet there."

3. "We have people who took six years to write the [new gTLD Applicant] Guidebook and we're asking engineers and software people and third-party vendors and hundreds of people to get that whole program running in six months."

4. "When the number two at IBM called me, Erich Clementi, after we signed the deal with them to do the [Trademark Clearinghouse] he said 'Are you nuts?'. Literally, quote. He said: 'Fadi you've built these systems for us before. You know it takes three times the amount of time it takes to write the specs to build reliable systems.'"

5. "We're facing a difficult situation, we're working hard as we can, our people are at the edge."

6. "I don't mean to scare you, because I know many of your businesses rely on this, but the right people are now in place, we're building it as fast as we can but I want you to understand that this is tough, and I wish it were different. I wish you would all raise your hands and say: 'You know what? Let's take a break and meet in a year'."

7. "I don't want to delay this program, but under all circumstances my mind would tell me: stop."

In other words, this is likely to be a complete and total disaster.

As a recent post noted, net neutrality is under threat in France, with ISPs like Free asking Google to pay extra for delivery of its traffic. According to this post on the Forbes Web site, Google has already agreed to pay the French telecoms company Orange in precisely this way. As well as damaging the whole principle of net neutrality, something that Google has been championing for many years, this would seem to be a pretty bad business decision. After all, if Orange is now getting paid to carry Google's traffic, why shouldn't every other telecom company out there also receive money for delivering Google's services?

It turns out that there are some very specific reasons why Google might have taken this surprising step, as Forbes explains:

Orange have implied their strong market position in Africa provided them sufficient leverage in the discussions with Google.

The African market is currently making the switch from feature phones with limited data access, to low-cost smartphones that provide far greater access to the internet and web services. Low-cost smartphones that are predominantly powered by Android. Google wants the emerging market to be running their OS so they can effectively monetize the continent. What they don't want is another platform becoming established, such as Nokia's low-cost Windows Phones or the upcoming Blackberry 10 devices.

This is really about the African market, then. As the analysis above notes, Google wants Android to become established there as successfully as it has elsewhere in the world. If it had refused to do a deal with Orange, which is apparently a major player in this region, there was a danger that Nokia or RIM could have taken advantage of the situation. Even though the payment is nominally about Net traffic, it's probably really about Google keeping a dominant telecom company sweet.

In most other parts of the world, Android is already established as the leading smartphone platform, so Google won't need to make similar deals. That doesn't mean that telecoms and ISPs won't demand them, but their bargaining position will generally be much weaker than Orange's. Google will probably be able to refuse without risking too much, secure in the knowledge that Internet users won't be best pleased with their ISPs if they can't access Gmail, or YouTube becomes unbearably laggy.

But even if the Orange deal is a special case, it's still bad news for the Internet. Google has clearly signaled that net neutrality is not sacrosanct, and that it is quite prepared to abandon it when necessary.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Want to know just how messed up our copyright system is, and just how out of sync it is with the way people feel about copyright and what makes sense? Just know this: between Jonathan Coulton and Fox, concerning the dispute over Fox's Glee using Coulton's rendition of Baby Got Back on their show -- you could make an argument that Coulton may have actually exposed himself to more copyright infringement problems than Fox did.

Allow me to explain. When the whole thing first broke, we thought that Coulton took the right approach in basically just telling his fans about it. Then, when we heard that he was exploring legal issues with his lawyers, that actually seemed like the wrong approach to take, even if he was upset about things. According to various reports, right before the show aired, Fox finally reached out to him and explained that what they did was perfectly legal (probably true) and that Coulton should be happy for the exposure. Coulton's response was quite reasonable -- asking if that meant Fox would be crediting him. Since the answer was no, the promise of exposure rings a bit hollow.

That said, it's not entirely hollow -- because of Coulton's ability to whip up (completely reasonable) righteous indignation about this from his fans via social media. As he told Mashable in the link above:

"They were right. I did get exposure, but it didn't come from anything they did. It was sympathetic outrage on Twitter, and bloggers and journalists talking about how crazy it was."

[....] "Sometimes I forget that Twitter is something beyond just being snarky at the Oscars. All of a sudden something happens and you remember that this is an amazing, powerful tool." Coulton says. "My fans have a keen sense of justice, and this idea that we should be attributed for our work. People who are of the Internet realize that attribution is what we trade on."

And, of course, he's taken it a step further as well, re-releasing his original song on iTunes, but calling it Baby Got Back (In the Style of Glee) and promising to donate the proceeds to two charities associated with Glee: The VH1 Save the Music Foundation and the It Gets Better Project. Song sales are doing well, with Coulton's version climbing the charts, while the official Glee version of the song is riddled with one star reviews from his supportive fans (even though he's not encouraging people to do this) and is nowhere to be found on the charts.

Still, what strikes me as perhaps most interesting about all of this is that as you explore the legal issues, it is entirely possible to come out with an argument that says that if anyone is infringing on copyright here... it's Jonathan Coulton. Let me be clear on this: I am not saying that anyone has directly accused him of this, nor am I suggesting (in any way) that he should be accused of this. I'm just showing how misaligned the law is with what most people think of as a sensible regime today. So why might Coulton be in trouble? As he's noted repeatedly, he paid the compulsory license to cover the song via the Harry Fox Agency. Doing so means that he agreed (pdf) to abide by Section 115 of the Copyright Act.

What's that? Well, check it out here. Here's the relevant part for our discussion:

A compulsory license includes the privilege of making a musical arrangement of the work to the extent necessary to conform it to the style or manner of interpretation of the performance involved, but the arrangement shall not change the basic melody or fundamental character of the work, and shall not be subject to protection as a derivative work under this title, except with the express consent of the copyright owner.

Previously, we and many others had suggested that the changes that what Coulton had made could possibly be protected as unique creative works. However, he more or less gave up that claim when he used the statutory license, rather than doing a direct deal with Sir Mix A Lot, or whoever else holds the rights on the song. That also means, however, that Coulton did not live up to Section 115 and his cover, in all likelihood, violates the original copyrights, because the license he got does not cover the very different arrangement and melody he created.

That is, by any normal measure, insane. But that's the law. This whole situation has (ridiculously) exposed Jonathan Coulton as a "pirate" and Fox as being perfectly within the law. And that just seems silly.

It's becoming something of a trend for Pakistan to ban and/or boycott things it doesn't like. It should be noted, of course, that different cultures have different levels of sensitivity about different subjects, but that doesn't mean we can't point out where we think they've got things wrong. Banning YouTube, for instance, is a head in the sand approach that just won't work. Getting into the business of monitoring all of your citizen's communications with foreigners and banning encryption is even more chilling. And it isn't just the Pakistani government getting into the act, either. Recall that one of their citizens called for the death penalty on the founders of Facebook due to some contest a Facebook user ran. So, while I'm all for cultural sensitivity, it shouldn't be expected in arenas where that sensitivity is not reciprocated.

Which is why I feel comfortable laughing hysterically as some Pakistani shopkeepers are boycotting two video games because they don't like how the fictional plot line portrays Pakistan.

Both Medal of Honor: Warfighter and Call of Duty: Black Ops II are first-person shooter games, where players take on the persona of an American special forces agent and feature ultra realistic graphics. Terrorism and the role of local security forces are hugely sensitive subjects in Pakistan, which has barely recovered from the shock of discovering that Osama bin Laden was hiding in plain sight, barely 30 miles from the capital Islamabad.

I'll leave the politics aside here, but it takes a special kind of awesome to be in nearly un-recoverable shock that bin Laden was hiding in your country when most of the world's media was suggesting as much for something like a decade. That he hid so easily near the nation's capital in a complex that was just begging to be investigated at the very least opens up the door for creative interpretations for how that might have happened. And that's exactly what the two games in question offer up as a fictional plotline. For example:

The latest installment of the Medal of Honor series opens with American Navy Seals coming ashore in Karachi docks on a mission to destroy a black market arms shipment. But when their detonation sets off a second, bigger explosion they realise they have stumbled on a much bigger terrorist plot, sparking a global manhunt. A chaotic car chase through the city follows amid warnings that the ISI - Pakistan's intelligence agency - is on the way.

Mr Memon added there was a danger children would be brainwashed into thinking foreign agents were at war inside Karachi, possibly leading them into the arms of militants.

In other words, the game has a plot that involves Pakistani intelligence cooperating with terrorists. That's a possibility about as shocking as, oh, say bin Laden hiding a paper airplane's throw away from Pakistan's capital. But the point is that it's a fictional plot. Fighting against it is silly. You might as well outlaw the Narnia books, because wardrobe-makers are insulted that any of their products could transport folks to witch-infested worlds ruled by multi-syllabic lions. What possible explanation could Mr. Memon have for this call to boycott?

"These games show a misleading idea of what is happening in the city. You don't get the CIA all the way through Grand Theft Auto," he said.

Quite true. On the other hand, no American stores in New York, Vegas, or L.A. are calling for a boycott of the GTA games because their cities are shown to be infested with shotgun wielding caricatures of Western culture. Because it's fiction.

You would have thought by now that people would understand that DRM is not only a bad idea, but totally unnecessary: Apple dropped DRM from music downloads in 2009 and seems to be making ends meet. Despite these obvious truths, the stupidity that is DRM continues to spread. Here, for example, is a particularly stupid example of DRM stupidity, as revealed by Manu Sporny:

A few days ago, a new proposal was put forward in the HTML Working Group (HTML WG) by Microsoft, Netflix, and Google to take DRM in HTML5 to the next stage of standardization at W3C.

After all, this is exactly what Web users have been crying out for: "just give us DRM for the Web, and our lives will be complete...."

Sporny runs through some technical reasons why this is doomed to failure -- little things like sending decryption keys in the clear -- and points out the awful re-balkanization of the Web that it would cause:

The EME [Encrypted Media Extensions] specification does not specify a DRM scheme in the specification, rather it explains the architecture for a DRM plug-in mechanism. This will lead to plug-in proliferation on the Web. Plugins are something that are detrimental to inter-operability because it is inevitable that the DRM plugin vendors will not be able to support all platforms at all times. So, some people will be able to view content, others will not.

He also notes a fundamental problem with the following Use Case for the proposed technology:

What use cases does this support?

Everything from user-generated content to be shared with family (user is not an adversary) to online radio to feature-length movies.

That clearly implies that when people are not sharing their own content with family and friends, then they are indeed adversaries:

This "user is not an adversary" text can be found in the first question about use cases. It insinuates that people that listen to radio and watch movies online are potential adversaries. As a business owner, I think that’s a terrible way to frame your customers.

Thinking of the people that are using the technology that you’re specifying as "adversaries" is also largely wrong. 99.999% of people using DRM-based systems to view content are doing it legally. The folks that are pirating content are not sitting down and viewing the DRM stream, they have acquired a non-DRM stream from somewhere else, like Mega or The Pirate Bay, and are watching that.

This is the fundamental reason why DRM is doomed and should be discarded: the only people it annoys are the ones who have tried to support creators by acquiring legal copies. How stupid is that?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

When parents, law enforcement or politicians discuss web-related issues, one topic always comes up: the possibility that predators are actively stalking children through various social media services. Sometimes this issue is conflated with others in order to push legislation through, while other times it's used as convenient shorthand for the dangers of unsupervised communication.

While the issue is often blown out of proportion, the underlying threat still remains. Arguably, it's much smaller problem than these concerned groups make it out to be, but it is still a real problem. Law enforcement, and the politicians who keep them funded, make capturing child predators a priority, often utilizing extensive sting operations and weeks (or months) of undercover work to put these offenders behind bars.

But what happens when the potential sex offender is himself a member of law enforcement? The answer, at least according to the Worcester, MA police department is "not much." Via Simple Justice comes this ugly story of police protectionism.

The handling of the case involving former Worcester Police Officer Neil Shea and his ensnarement in a sting operation targeting sex predators might have some wondering whether the priority of law enforcement is to protect and serve the community, or to protect and serve itself.

The story begins with an investigation being run by an undercover officer who, while pretending to be a 14-year-old girl, engaged Officer Shea (Latenightcop171) in this conversation:

Latenightcop171 — So you want to learn things

Undercover — What can you teach me

Latenightcop171 — Lot of things

Latenightcop171 — We’d have sex

Undercover — Of course silly, but anything special or weird.

Shortly thereafter, the undercover cop went offline to track down any information on Latenightcop171. The cellphone number provided by Latenightcop171 led back to Officer Shea. Moments after this discovery, the investigation was terminated.

We know that once his identity was discovered, someone from the command post alerted the Worcester Police Department Detective Bureau, which confirmed that Mr. Shea was indeed a member of the department.

We know that once this confirmation was made someone decided to terminate the conversation with Mr. Shea.

We know that the termination was suggested by the Worcester Detective Bureau on the grounds that if Officer Shea had not at that point made “any offers, or broken any law, and that he had not crossed the line, then we should just move on to other more promising subjects.”

Any normal investigation would have continued until the "line" was crossed but in this case, in order to keep one of their own from incriminating himself further, the Detective Bureau called off their own investigator. And it looks as if Officer Shea would have gone further, if given the chance.

We also learned that later, after the undercover officer went offline, law enforcement officials later went back to check the transcript of the chat room conversation and found that “Latenightcop171” had made additional contact, including leaving a friend request.

The District Attorney's office denies any involvement in the investigation's termination. Police Chief Gemme, however, claims the termination call was made by an on-scene police supervisor who decided that there was "insufficient evidence to pursue a criminal complaint."

What Gemme says is inarguably true, but only because the investigation was shut down, not because any of Officer Shea's actions up to that point indicated he did not want to pursue this further. While it's true that some people have walked up to the precipice (so to speak) and peered over it before deciding to step away, we'll never know for sure if Officer Shea was one of them. Instead, he was met at the precipice by his employers, who carried with them a taxpayer-funded safety net.

Officer Shea obviously wasn't going to be able to escape this situation unscathed, but what he ended up with is a lot more than any average citizen in the same position could possibly expect.

We are told Mr. Shea did not commit any crime, but that it was determined by Police Chief Gary Gemme that Mr. Shea committed several violations, including incompetence, neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer.

Mr. Shea resigned before the investigation, in which all allegations were sustained, was completed. He is free to receive all retirement benefits.

Officer Shea ducked a pedophile sting (with some inside help) and exited with a full pension. This works out well for him, and keeps the Worcester PD from having to dirty its hands any further. But, as The Telegram asks, how does this help the community? You know, the same community Officer Shea was supposed to be protecting from criminal activity like this?

Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice asks the same question, only in a much more righteously furious tone. What "line" does the Worcester PD actually think needs to be crossed before someone like Officer Shea is forced out without collecting benefits?

After all, there is nothing a police officer can do, not even roaming the interwebz to find teenage girls in his community with whom to chat about sexual liaisons, that warrants stripping a cop of his pension. For anyone who doesn't appreciate the importance of the pension, this should make it abundantly clear, as not even his pedophile conduct was sufficient to push him over the line of denying him a pension.

While the mere inquiry, without further action toward making contact happen, may not have pushed this conduct from "unbecoming" to criminal, the termination of the sting before Shea took the next step of setting up a meeting with his new 14-year-old friend precluded his prosecution and, upon conviction, the end of his ability to entice little girls to have sex with him...

Anybody want to bet that all the parents of teenage girls in Worcester are cool with the fact that they are not only paying Shea's pension, but that he's still got unfettered internet access to chat up their babies?

As Greenfield suggests, the next time someone starts wringing their hands about child predators roaming the 'net, be sure to point out that those actively engaged in countering this threat were forced to cut a potential sex offender loose simply because he was one of the "good guys." How does this police department, in good conscience, sell out its own community in order to keep a fellow officer from being incarcerated or stripped of his benefits? How can they look their fellow citizens in the eye and claim they're here to serve and protect the public?

A few weeks ago, we noted that the first "three strikes" case of infringement in New Zealand was set to go to the Copyright Tribunal (an earlier case was dropped after the recording industry (RIANZ) realized it had screwed up). The Tribunal has now issued its first ruling, demanding that the accused pay a grand total of $616.57 NZ (about $515 US). The person was accused of downloading and sharing Rihanna's Man Down twice, and Hot Chelle Rae's Tonight Tonight once. The tribunal noted that the first song retailed for $2.39 and the latter at $1.79, so it doubled the first one, and started with $6.57 (all NZ dollars). Then it added $50 to pay for infringement notices being sent out. Another $200 covers the fee that RIANZ paid to bring the case, and then it tacked on a "deterrent sum" of $360 -- or $120 per song. Add it all up and you've got $616.57.

The full ruling is a bit odd, but highlights the ridiculousness of NZ's three strikes law. The Tribunal notes that, since this is the first such ruling, it was going to explain each point carefully, and it did. But the really crazy stuff is that it notes that, under the law, it basically has to assume that the accusations mean guilt. The accused responded by admitting only to downloading Man Down a single time, and guessing that the second time had to do with a problem with uTorrent. She denies entirely that she or anyone in her household downloaded the other song.

"The letter outlines three separate infringements recorded on an internet connection in my name. The first song downloaded was a song called man down by rihanna. I accept responsibility for this. I downloaded this song unaware that in doing so from this site was illegal. When this song was downloaded to my computer; a whole utorrent program downloaded onto my computer [W]hen I turned my computer on it said that the song was still downloading and maybe that caused the song to register twice as it being downloaded? l'm unsure if this is possible or not but don't know why it shows that I would try to download the same song twice.

l kept receiving a pop up notice saying it seems like utorrent is already running but not responding, please close all utorrent processes and try again ... I figured out how to delete the song that was still trying to download but still couldn't figure out how to delete the whole program until just recently when I got someone to look at it as after I received the letter, i assumed having this program on my computer was causing the warning regarding downloading?

When I received the letter warning me of the download and consequences and that it was illegal, I didn't challenge the letter as I took responsibility for my actions and realised I was in the wrong and took it as a warning and didn't do it again.

I would never intentionally do anything illegal and you can see this from my criminal record as it is clean. I didn't realise that it was illegal and I apologise sincerely for this mistake and have removed it from my computer.

In regards to the song 'tonight tonight' by Hot Chelle Rae being downloaded, I can't claim responsibility for this as it wasn't done by myself or anyone in this household but if I find the person responsible for downloading this through my internet then I will definitely enforce the consequences behind doing so."

So, basically, of the three strikes, she admits to one, suggests the other one, if done, was completely by accident, and vehemently denies the final download. The Tribunal basically ignores all that and says that, under the law, an accusation is as good as guilt unless you provide evidence of innocence -- and then says she failed to do so. Think about that for a second. You need to prove a negative here -- which seems close to impossible, but that's what the law apparently requires.

The Act creates a presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work identified. An account holder may submit evidence that this presumption does not apply, or give reasons why it should not apply. In this case, the Respondent has not provided any evidence that the presumption should not apply. In fact, she acknowledges that at least some manner of infringement has taken place and has apologised for this.

You would think that admitting honestly to that single download might make the Tribunal wonder if perhaps the other two accusations were inaccurate, but instead it take it as proof that "some manner of infringement" has taken place, so it can assume that the accusations were all accurate. The Tribunal basically throws up its hands and says that since there is "insufficient evidence" it just assumes "guilty."

There is insufficient evidence before the Tribunal for it to make detailed findings on these factual issues. That is the nature of a decision being made on the papers. On the basis of the information available to it, however, together with the statutory presumption that each incidence of file sharing identified in an infringement notice constitutes an infringement of the right owner's copyright in the work, the Tribunal is satisfied that file sharing took place via the Respondent's internet account as alleged.

In the normal world, "insufficient evidence" means that you're presumed innocent, not guilty. But this is copyright law we're talking about, where the normal rules don't apply.

If there's any silver lining to the ruling, it's that the Tribunal did not go as far as RIANZ wanted. It had argued that the accused should have to pay a lot more than the cost of purchasing the track for that initial cost, because (it argued) any upload could be shared multiple times. The Tribunal rejects that idea, saying that it is "not relevant" to the cost issue, though it may be relevant concerning deterrence. On the issue of deterrence, the Tribunal more or less sticks its finger in the air and picks $120.

RIANZ tried to argue that the deterrence fee should be high, because it insisted the downloading of three songs (really only two songs) was clearly "flagrant." Why? Well, because she used uTorrent! Therefore, she must be a serial infringer.

The fact that the account holder had BitTorrent protocol (uTorrent version 2.2.0) software installed on her computer. It notes that the locating downloading, installing and configuring of such software is a deliberate act and does not occur without direct action on behalf of a computer user.

The fact that uTorrent is perfectly legal and has significant non-infringing uses is not something that the RIANZ cares to concede. RIANZ also claimed that three whole downloads proves "flagrancy." Oh, and they insist that she "took no action to alter her behavior" -- again as an argument for flagrancy. Of course, the woman argues that she did, in fact, change her behavior. Either way the Tribunal notes that these arguments have nothing to do with flagrancy, since they'll automatically apply to just about anyone who shows up in front of the panel.

On the whole, it seems doubtful that this is going to suddenly make people start buying music again, but why let that get in the way of shaking down some music fans?