Over a hundred years ago, Albert Einstein published what would become his theory of special relativity, and since then, there have been quite a few experiments that support Einstein's ideas. That's the way science usually works. A theory hypothesis is proposed, and if it's deemed worthy enough, other people will actually try to test out the theory hypothesis and see if its predictions can be verified (and every worthy theory hypothesis needs to be able to predict something that isn't already known). As non-traditional scientific publishing becomes easier and more popular, though, the signal-to-noise for interesting ideas can get a bit difficult to discern. Luckily, there are still some folks willing to bear the burden of debunking extraordinary claims from an endless stream of nearly-good ideas.

• Vinay Deolalikar posted his "proof" that P!=NP a few years ago, but it didn't quite stand up to the scrutiny of some mathematicians -- and you, too, can dismiss an extraordinary proof by watching out for a few telltale signs. It's hard to refute everyone who claims to have a P!=NP proof, but there's a roadmap for how to avoid wasting other mathematicians' valuable time. [url]
• A. Garrett Lisi has a grand unifying theory of the universe, but maybe he should stick to surfing. Lisi's TEDtalk is amazingly devoid of physics, but the Large Hadron Collider may have the final say about whether "E8" provides any unique insights on the universe. [url]
• In 2012, Japanese mathematician Shinichi Mochizuki posted 500+ pages (on the internet!) that "might" prove the ABC Conjecture. Mochizuki refuses to discuss his proof, and so far, no one else has really been able to tell him he's wrong. [url]

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

Another day, another overreach by the legacy players in the entertainment industry. Hot off its highly questionable win in the SurfTheChannel case, the "Federation Against Copyright Theft" (FACT) has forced torrent tracker UKNova to shut down. Now, some people will assume that this is just another torrent tracker, but the details raise some serious questions.

First of all, UKNova appears to have vigorously policed its listings, and was quick to take down content when it was shown to be infringing. The site also had strict rules about what could be listed, stating that it would not allow anything that was available commercially. So if it's available on DVD or on pay TV, it wasn't allowed and was blocked on the site. When FACT contacted them about some content, UKNova immediately removed the links. While this is the UK, rather than the US, this seems to follow the type of "good practices" found under the DMCA's safe harbors that indicate a site willing to act in good faith to prevent infringement. But... not according to FACT. With FACT, you're guilty until proven innocent:

“We immediately removed the alleged offending links to content that could be [connected to] the two companies and replied to FACT assuring them of our cooperation in the matter, but asking them to point out examples of potentially offending links,” a UKNova admin told us.

“ALL links or access to content provided by UKNova are infringing, unless you can prove that you have obtained explicit permission from the copyright holder for that content,” was FACT’s response.

Of course, under such rules, pretty much no user generated content sites could exist. And, given who backs FACT, perhaps that really is their goal...

One of the issues we've had with the use of IP addresses as "proof" of file sharing, is that there can be many users and many computers coming from a single IP address -- and lots of times we've seen parents sued for actions of their kids or even their kids' friends. Now, under any common sense approach to the world, you would think that this would be seen as a problem. Occasionally, we've heard entertainment industry execs say that it doesn't matter, and it should be the responsibility of whoever pays for the connection to make sure it's not misused. For the most part, though, our judicial system realizes that you don't blame the wrong party.

Apparently, over in Germany they feel differently. A woman, whose son apparently used file sharing programs despite the mother's explicit ban on such things, has been held responsible for the son's file sharing. The court said that simply banning her children from file sharing was not enough -- she should have actively monitored the connection. That seems like an incredible stretch -- and even makes you wonder if the judge has children.

Either way, I can see no reasonable argument for blaming a third party for someone else's actions, and it's even worse when that third party specifically told the others not to take part in the activity.

This is a first. In the trial that the movie studios have brought against torrent search engine Isohunt, the judge has pushed back on the MPAA's claims, noting that it has failed to show any evidence of actual infringement by US users. In the past, groups like the MPAA and the RIAA have been able to get by without ever proving real infringement, but just by suggesting it must be happening. So this is quite a surprise. It makes the Isohunt case one to watch more seriously. The company may still lose the lawsuit, but at least the judge seems to want to see actual evidence, rather than having Hollywood execs insisting that these sites are killing their business just because they say so.

Following in the footsteps of the MPAA, the RIAA has now filed its response in the Jammie Thomas case, claiming again that actual proof of distribution doesn't make sense: "Requiring proof of actual transfers would cripple efforts to enforce copyright owners' rights online." See, there's just one problem with this. The law isn't designed to make it easy to enforce copyright owners rights. It's designed to make sure that only the guilty party is actually blamed for breaking the law. So the fact that it's "difficult" shouldn't sway the judge.

Furthermore, while the discussion here was supposed to focus on whether or not "making available" is infringement, it looks like the RIAA decided to pull in a bunch of other arguments as well, noting that Thomas downloaded many of the songs in her folder (yet, the case was about uploading, not downloading), and that none of it matters because the RIAA actually does have proof of distribution (in the form of Media Sentry downloading the files). Again, though, those points are not what's up for debate here. So, once again, we have the RIAA trying to cloud the issue. Oh yeah, and, of course, the RIAA can't resist using its bogus arguments that international treaties require US courts to treat making available as distribution. That's an incredibly weak argument, based on the idea that these treaties, often written by the industry, and approved by diplomats who don't understand what they really mean, should be binding over what the law actually says.

The entertainment industry has been pushing for courts to rule that simply "making available" content for file sharing is the equivalent of copyright infringement. There's a big problem with this, however. Copyright covers a few different things, and the key ones under which most people are charged is unauthorized "distribution." But, if there's no evidence that a file was actually shared, it's difficult to see how distribution actually occurred. Basically, those who say making available isn't distribution are simply saying that for someone to be charged with unauthorized distribution there should at least be proof that distribution occurred. In most (though not all) cases, the judges have seen this and ruled that simply "making available" is not distribution.

In the one high profile case that a judge ruled otherwise, the infamous Jammie Thomas case, the judge has now admitted that he may have made a "manifest error of law" and has asked parties to file briefs to give their thoughts on the making available issue. The MPAA has taken the opportunity to basically say that it's too difficult to find actual proof, and therefore they shouldn't have to do so:

"Mandating such proof could thus have the pernicious effect of depriving copyright owners of a practical remedy against massive copyright infringement in many instances.... It is often very difficult, and in some cases, impossible, to provide such direct proof when confronting modern forms of copyright infringement."

In other words, since it's difficult to get proof, we shouldn't have to provide proof. This is especially problematic given how flimsy the "proof" that the entertainment industry already relies on.