On Wednesday night, news broke that a 20-year-old “supporter of the student movement,” Jennifer Pawluck was arrested in Montreal for posting a picture to Instagram that she took of a graffiti wheat paste illustration that showed Montreal’s police commander Ian Lafrenière with a bloody bullethole in his forehead. According to the CBC, the image was thrown up on a brick wall in the Hochelaga-Maisonneuve neighborhood. And Jennifer Pawluck—not that this even matters—didn’t even draw the anti-cop graphic in the first place.

Jennifer Pawluck was picked up by Montreal police at her home Wednesday, questioned for several hours and then released on a promise to appear in court.

The picture depicts Montreal police commander Ian Lafrenière with a bullet hole in his head. Lafrenière was a bit of a lightning rod during last year's riots in Montreal due to his position as head of the Communications Division. While the image is violent and could be perceived as threatening, posting a photo of the graffiti on Instagram is hardly "harassment" in and of itself. As the Vice article points out, there have been plenty of other photos of this particular artwork uploaded to Instagram.

The police (unsurprisingly) have been less than forthcoming as to why Pawluck needed to be questioned for "several hours" about this photo. Here's what the department did have to say:

Spokesman Const. Dany Richer said the concern extends beyond just the posting of the photo, but said he could not go into further details.

“There are circumstances that surrounded the publication of this image, circumstances that we can’t reveal because it is still under investigation,” he said.

She has not been formally charged, but is scheduled to appear in court on April 17.

The tallest trees catch the most wind.

That’s an expression I frequently use when asked to defend EA’s place in the gaming industry. And it comes to mind again this week as we get deeper into the brackets of an annual Web poll to name the “Worst Company in America.”

Some of these complaints are 100 percent legitimate – like all large companies we are not perfect. But others just don’t hold water:

In the past year, we have received thousands of emails and postcards protesting against EA for allowing players to create LGBT characters in our games. This week, we’re seeing posts on conservative web sites urging people to protest our LGBT policy by voting EA the Worst Company in America. That last one is particularly telling. If that’s what makes us the worst company, bring it on. Because we're not caving on that.

Instead, it looks at EA’s history of buying up smaller, successful developers with the intention of milking — and arguably ruining — the intellectual properties that made these acquired companies so attractive. It also discusses EA’s exclusivity deals on popular sports games, that some say effectively sets the bar for retail prices for the rest of the gaming industry.

Then there’s the issue of microtransactions, in-game purchases that EA has made no secret are at the center of its business model. Many customers believe that EA’s view of microtransactions isn’t to simply charge customers a little bit of money for something that is additional, but not integral, to the core game, but rather to put out broken or deliberately incomplete games with the ultimate goal of selling add-on content that should have been included in the $60 price tag to begin with.

A unanimous Court of Appeals decided that the trial judge, Clinton Canady, was wrong to deny a protective order barring Thomas M. Cooley Law School from disclosing the name of a former student whom it had sued, alleging that harsh criticisms of Cooley on his blog, the Thomas Cooley Law School Scam, were defamatory.  The majority opinion faults the trial judge for deciding that Michigan law does not require such a protective order, and for assuming that a public figure like Cooley is exempt from having to allege and prove actual malice simply because the Doe had called its conduct criminal.  Under the ruling, Doe will be able to seek to have the complaint dismissed either on its face or for lack of evidence to support the claim that his blog is defamatory. 

For future cases, however, it is disappointing that the majority opinion, in its effort to avoid applying the Dendrite and Cahill standards directly, gave little guidance to trial courts about the standards under which anonymous speakers' requests for protective orders should be decided by trial judges. And most troublesome is the majority's deliberate refusal to address the notice requirement on which every other state appellate court has insisted, because otherwise an anonymous defendant may not know that a subpoena has been issued seeking his identifying information. Thus, while the Doe was well-protected in this case, that is only because Cooley Law School issued a press release announcing its defamation claims, enabling the Doe to file a motion to block the subpoena.

A powerful opinion by Judge Jane Beckering concurs in the decision to overturn the denial of anonymity protection and remand the case, but strongly disagrees with the reasoning, arguing that Michigan should embrace the approach taken by almost very other state that has addressed the issue and adopt clear standards to guide trial judges. Judge Beckering explains that Michigan's existing rules require notice before subpoenas can be issued, and hence that appropriate First Amendment standards can be incorporated without any need to change the current rules.

“We’ve received a DMCA complaint regarding content hosted in your account,” came the late-night email from Acorn Host. “As you are probably aware, web hosts do not have much leeway in responding to complaints like this. We do not get to judge fair use or anything of that sort; we are required to remove anything someone submits a claim about, until which time as you submit a counter-complaint.”

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.”

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.

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.

“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.”

“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.”

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

(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.

I'm of course happy to abide by Twitter's rules, now and forever. But I don't see how I broke them in this case: I didn't publish a private email address. Just a corporate one, which is widely available to anyone with access to Google, and is identical to one that all of the tens of thousands of NBC Universal employees share.

It's no more "private" than the address I'm emailing you from right now.

Either way, quite worrying that NBC, whose parent company are an Olympic sponsor, are apparently trying (and, in this case, succeeding) in shutting down the Twitter accounts of journliasts who are critical of their Olympic coverage.

"You steal my cartoons (read definition of Fair Use - NOT on SA) and ignore my takedown & DMCA notices. That's evil," she wrote.

To bolster her case, Barstow evoked the Federal Trade Commission, the U.S. Copyright Office and the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and cited today's story in the LA Times describing how Twitter gets 80 percent of requests for user information from U.S.-based police forces.

Similarly, if Barstow thinks that she can sue Something Awful and its goon squad for defamation for calling her a racist, she is similarly badly mistaken. First, Something Awful is completely immune for the comments of its forum visitors under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Second, calling Barstow a racist based on her comics is classic pure opinion absolutely protected by the First Amendment. This is not a case of opinion premised on false unstated facts, as if someone said "based on what I overheard Donna Barstow say, she is a racist." Rather it's pure opinion based on disclosed facts — the very cartoons she complains they posted. (Note that this strengthens the fair use argument.) Partington v. Bugliosi, 56 F.3d 1147, 1156–1157 (9th Cir.1995) ("when an author outlines the facts available to him, thus making it clear that the challenged statements represent his own interpretation of those facts and leaving the reader free to draw his own conclusions, those statements are generally protected by the First Amendment.") Such accusations of racism are routinely protected as opinion by the courts. See, for instance, Rambo v. Cohen, 587 N.E.2d 140, 149 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (statement that plaintiff was “anti-Semitic” was protected opinion); Stevens v. Tillman, 855 F.2d 394, 402 (7th Cir.1988) (Illinois law) (accusations of “racism”); Smith v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 112 F.Supp.2d 417, 429–30 (E.D.Pa.2000) (granting judgment on the pleadings after concluding that the accusation of racism was an opinion); Martin v. Brock, No. 07C3154, 2007 WL 2122184, at *3 (N.D.Ill. July 19, 2007) (accusation of racism is nonactionable opinion in Illinois); Lennon v. Cuyahoga Cnty. Juvenile Ct., No. 86651, 2006 WL 1428920, at * 6 (Ohio Ct.App. May 25, 2006) (concluding that in the specific context of the accusation, calling a co-worker racist was nonactionable opinion); Puccia v. Edwards, No. 98–00065, 1999 WL 513895, at *3–4 (Mass.Super.Ct. Apr. 28, 1999) (concluding accusations of racism are nonactionable opinion); Covino v. Hagemann, 165 Misc.2d 465, 627 N.Y.S.2d 894, 895–96 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1995) (concluding statement that plaintiff had “racially sensitive attitude” is not actionable). By contrast, cases finding that accusations of racism were actionable defamation usually involved implication of false facts. See, for instance, Overhill Farms v. Lopez, 190 Cal.App.4th 1248 (2010) (accusation that business fired workers for racial reasons was a statement of fact distinguishable from a mere opinion that farm owners were racist). And those are just the cases I found in about five minutes whilst distracted by yelling at an associate.

Thanks to someone on Twitter who pointed Ms. Barstow to my contact information, she just called me at my office. I would characterize the conversation as surreal. Among the things she said: (1) she saw that I didn't list copyright as an area of expertise, so how could I write about this, (2) she hadn't threatened to sue anyone, (3) she shouldn't have to put up with defamation, (4) how can I say bad things about her, (5) Obama created some sort of new copyright department but it was useless, (6) she was just trying to reach out to me person to person, and (7) she thought it was suspicious that I did not "sign" my post.

Here’s a rule worth following: Don’t sue your critics for copyright infringement.

Judge Glasser ran through the “likelihood of confusion” factors (opinion pages 13 to 16) as has become de rigeur in all trademark cases even though they are ill-suited to deciding cases where the real issue is fair use (and despite Barton Beebe’s demonstration of the ways in which courts manipulate the test to justify pre-determined outcomes).  But the more important part of the opinion is its focus on whether a reasonable consumer, seeing the web pages at issue, would have any doubt about whether the pages they were reviewing were sponsored by Ascentive – and even a moron in a hurry would not be so confused (pages 16 to 20).   Ultimately, then, the issue comes down to a claim of initial interest confusion, but Judge Glasser rejected that argument (pages 20 to 28). 

Initial interest confusion is unlikely even on its own terms, both because PissedConsumer.com is not in competition with Ascentive’s web sites, and because search engines generally do not take keyword meta tags into account.  Moreover, the meta tags and title tags are used accurately in this case – they lead to pages that are about Ascentive’s products, albeit unflattering ones.  Judge Glasser also embraced later decisions that have questioned the very premises of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in its once-seminal Brookfield Communications decision, and have noted that the “harm” created by a misleading meta tag — being taken to a web site that the searcher finds unrelated to his actual search objectives — is easily remedied by clicking back to the search engine results.  Finally, Judge Glasser expressed impatience with the notion that trademark law should provide a remedy for unethical and excessive search engine optimization tactics — the search engines themselves take a dim view of being gamed, he noted, and their remedies can be much more effective than a court's.  In this instance, however, it is hard to see any impropriety in Opinion Corp.’s SEO techniques, because the complaints about Ascentive’s products are just what the average consumer might want to see when searching online for information to help decide whether to risk entrusting her credit card number to Ascentive’s billing department and her computer to Ascentive’s software.

Judge Glasser also rejected Ascentive’s contention that the display of advertising by its competitors adjacent to the critical comments violated its trademark rights (pages 28 to 32).  As on most advertising-supported web sites, advertising is placed at the discretion of the advertising service to which the space has been rented, so if Ascentive has a cause of action it would be against the advertising service. Of course, it did not sue that service because the remedy it seeks is the removal of critical comments, and the service cannot do that.

We need a new legislative approach. The absolute immunity enjoyed by online service providers needs to be qualified. At the request of a user, service providers should be required to give anonymous posters a firm choice: agree to reveal who they are (to accept responsibility for their posts in their own names) or their posts will be taken down.

Through this simple mechanism, an alleged victim can either have the abusive information removed or discover the identity of the harasser.

Second, what exactly has Brown done for her minority constituents during the 17 years she's been in Congress?

Too many African-Americans continue to live in poverty. Too many African-Americans are out of work. Too many African-American youth are the perpetrators or victims of violent crime. Too many African-American students lag behind in school or drop out.

Brown promotes herself as one who brings home the pork. Her campaign slogan proclaims "Corrine Delivers!"

Besides feathering her own nest while in Washington, just exactly what has Brown delivered for her minority constituents?

"This website has to be removed," the mayor said. "I'm not going to go down the freedom of speech road. But some of the stuff that's on there is fraudulent. You want to put information out? Fine. Say you don't like me? Fine. But attacks on my wife, my daughter? I won't stand for that."

A person with knowledge of the situation told the 9Wants to Know investigators that Video Professor's approximately 50 employees were called to a meeting Monday and told they were being placed on unpaid furlough.

Phones at Video Professor's corporate office and customer service center were answered Thursday by an automated message notifying callers the offices were closed for the day and to call back at a later time.

A call to Video Professor's CEO and pitchman, John Scherer, drew a return call from a company spokesman who would not answer questions or elaborate beyond a one-sentence statement: "The company is going through a reorganization that involves some temporary furloughs."