Techdirt. Stories filed under "satire"

UK Mobile Operator 3UK Filtering New Class Of 'Mature Content', Including Political Satire

Glyn Moody — Tue, 15 Jan 2013 23:51:00 PST

Smartphones have some big advantages: they offer considerable computing power in a highly-portable form, and are available at prices that allow a broad spectrum of users to get online easily. But as we reported last year, there's a big downside, too, one that's all-the-more dangerous for being invisible to most people: overblocking of sites caused by opt-out "child protection filters" applied by some mobile operators to their Internet feed.

Here's yet another worrying example of that problem, this time involving the UK operator 3UK, pointed out by Nick Rothwell. Pride's Purge is a Web site described by its creator Tom Pride as "an irreverent look at UK politics". As he recently discovered, it's also blocked by 3UK's child protection filter. He contacted the company on Twitter, pointing out that Pride's Purge was not a porn site or anything similar, and this is what it replied:

We don't just block adult websites, websites with mature content may also be censored.

So it now seems that there is a category of material called "mature content" that is distinct from "adult content", and that is also blocked by child protection filters, at least on 3UK's network. Worryingly, political satire seems to be regarded as an example of "mature content", and therefore unsuitable for children under 18. In fact, the censorship is even worse, as Pride explains: it's not blocked for just the under-18s. It's blocked for anyone who hasn't proven to [3UK] they are over 18 -- and that means you will have to give your full identity to 3UK before they allow you to enter this site.

Which means 3UK now officially regard political satire as porn -- and are censoring it in exactly the same way.
This very broad, default censorship is disturbing for at least two reasons. First, because many people will be unaware that this kind of "mature content" censorship is taking place at all, and therefore won't ask for it to be stopped. And secondly, even if they are aware, the fact that asking for the filter to be lifted could be seen as tantamount to wanting to access porn -- something that many will understandably be reluctant to have noted down on their Internet access record -- means that they will simply put up with a limited feed. And so the creeping, silent censorship of the mobile Internet not only continues, but probably gets worse in the absence of any significant pushback against it.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Copyright Maximalism: Turning Satirical Works Into Ridiculous Reality

Tim Cushing — Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:39:43 PST

Last week, we discussed Microsoft's patent filing on a content distribution system that counted heads and charged license fees accordingly. Utilizing the Kinect or some other unnamed technology, Microsoft had the beginnings of the copyright industries' wildest dreams: an opportunity to treat the public's living rooms like theaters and collect "admission" from every viewer.

Rick Falkvinge has amusingly pointed out that "prior art" exists for this "Content Distribution Regulator" -- in the form of a satirical piece published at BBspot (and covered here years ago, noting that it "hit too close to home") five years before Microsoft's filing.

Six years ago, a satire site wrote a story about how the copyright industry wanted more money if you invited friends to watch a movie in your living room. This notion has now been patented in new technology: automated headcounts coming to a living room near you, to enable new forms of restrictions. Apparently, the copyright industry takes six years to catch up with the very worst satire of it.

The satirical piece Falkvinge quotes deals with the MPAA trying to push through a bill that would allow it to take control of people's living rooms and treat them like theaters.

The MPAA is lobbying congress to push through a new bill that would make unauthorized home theaters illegal. The group feels that all theaters should be sanctioned, whether they be commercial settings or at home.

This paragraph in particular is eerily prescient:

The bill would require that any hardware manufactured in the future contain technology that tells the MPAA directly of what is being shown and specific details on the audience. The data would be gathered using various motion sensors and biometric technology.

Sounds exactly like Microsoft's idea, doesn't it? In fact, it sounds close enough that you could argue that it should invalidate the patent in question. Either way, there's no way the MPAA isn't hoping this comes to fruition. Sure, money can be made by producing new movies but it's so much simpler to charge people over and over for the same item. Various format changes over the years have resulted in some double- and triple-dipping. Digital distribution, combined with Microsoft's consumer-unfriendly device, takes rentals into "real money" territory and very possibly will take digital purchases in that direction as well. Here's a quote from the satire that may as well be real:

"Just because you buy a DVD to watch at home doesn't give you the right to invite friends over to watch it too. That's a violation of copyright and denies us the revenue that would be generated from DVD sales to your friends," said Glickman. "Ideally we expect each viewer to have their own copy of the DVD, but we realize that isn't always feasible. The registration fee is a fair compromise."

We've heard wording like this before, where industry heads claim some irrationally high license fee is a "fair compromise." It's viewed as fair by licensing agencies because if they were able, they would have charged much, much more.

Falkvinge points out that those satirizing these industries may just be unwitting futurists:

So be careful when you write satire about the madness and delusions of the copyright industry (and that certainly isn't hard – more often than not, ordinary journalism will do fine). Either tread very carefully, or start a little stopwatch the next time you publish satire about what that parasitic, shameless industry will think of next.

This is a fact. The content industries' love of licenses (and the ability to charge multiple times for the same content) has made it into an easy punchline. Beyond the satire Falkvinge quoted are other examples demonstrating that your average citizen already recognizes the colossal overreach of these industries and the absurdity of the licenses connected to each form of artistic expression they cover.

Earlier this year, sportswriter Mike Tanier used public performance licensing (namely, the violation of these licenses) as the lynchpin for his plan to rid the NFL of replacement referees.

If the crowd at an NFL game sings "Hey Jude," television networks will be stuck broadcasting "Hey Jude" without the rights-holders permission. The sound editors are pretty good at obscuring the B.S. chant, but that only takes a little bit of white noise. Try editing away one of the most recognizable melodies in the world on live television. The broadcast will sound like it is coming from Venus. But if the NFL doesn't drown out the singing, someone big and powerful is going to show up at league headquarters in a suing mood.

When you've got sportswriters using aggressive licensing issues as a punchline, you know the it's reached critical mass. Not only is a sportswriter skewering performance rights organizations, the NFL's copyright paranoia, the Beatles' fierce grasp on its catalog and the overreaction of all these entities to "unlicensed" use, he also laying it out there confidently, expecting his audience to recognize the ridiculousness of it all without needing to resort to pages of footnotes and links to relevant legal information. It's obvious to everybody but the licensing agencies how utterly preposterous this all is.

Need another example of this common knowledge? Just recently, a piece at famous humor site McSweeney's recasted Gil Scott-Heron's famous phrase, explaining exactly why "the revolution will not be televised." Here's a few choice quotes from a much longer piece (all of it worth reading):

The revolution will not be televised due to our blackout policy. Because the revolution is taking place in your market, you will be unable to watch the revolution. Instead of the revolution, the classic Billy Bob Thornton/John Cusack film, Pushing Tin, will be televised.

The revolution will not be televised, but it will be available for streaming on Hulu.com seven days after the revolution takes place.

The revolution will not be televised because of a dispute between the revolution and DIRECTV. If you'd like to see the revolution, please call DIRECTV and demand that they put the revolution back on the air.

The revolution will not be televised, but if you have a cable subscription, you can log in to WatchRevolutions.com and use their authenticator to watch the revolution. Just provide your username and password, and you will have access to the revolution live, plus alternate angles, commentary, and the ability to share your login with up two more IP addresses.

With digital distribution, each iteration is subject to its own limitations and restrictions, just the way the content industries prefer it. As the shift continues in this direction, I would expect the major players to continue their march into brave new licensing schemes far surpassing satirists' most fevered dreams. They control the licenses they've "sold" their customers and have shown they have absolutely no qualms about abusing consumers in order to squeeze a few more dollars out of the content. Microsoft's filing turns what was originally a series of punchlines into a very plausible glimpse of the future.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

$exytime: Thanks To An Easily Exploitable System, Three Lawyers Have 'Patented Sex'*

Tim Cushing — Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:17:00 PDT

*No, not really.

We all yearn for several things, among them true patent reform and the touch of another human being. Especially there. And there. But maybe not there... at least not without some... but I digress. The U.S. has long held to the notion of "first to invent," rather than "first inventor to file." Until recently, that is. The America Invents Act silenced critics who complained that "first to invent" made the system slightly harder to exploit. But that's all behind us now. As these three lawyers point out in their hilarious parody video, "first inventor to file" opens the door for some pretty devious behavior. (CAUTION: Probably NSFW. Contains sexual terminology, some light swearing and Patrick Leahy.)

There's a lot to love in the video, even if the opening is a little slow (but entirely necessary). If you're a patent wonk (does such a thing exist?), shout-outs to patent laws (PL 112-29, yo) and an appearance by David Kappos, the director of the USPTO, will provide a few thrills. If you're everyone else, there's a ton of sexual verbiage and Patrick Leahy, both Obamas and Michael Jackson all get name checked. Keep your eyes peeled for a distracted patent officer 'rubber-stamping' an application.

All in all, it's good ~~clean~~ fun that takes a few jabs at the more ludicrous aspects of the patent process. I'd love to see them expand this idea out further, perhaps encompassing some of the research aspects, like somehow making Google's Prior Art finder harvest results from Google Images. Or checking a sexual partner for infringement by requiring a list of past partners and positions. Or maybe tackle the "patent troll" angle: the guy who patents sex but never actually performs the act.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Copyright Sci-Fi: What Will Lifelong Copyright Terms Mean When People Live Way Longer?

Leigh Beadon — Wed, 6 Jun 2012 23:59:00 PDT

Correction: I initially mistook the name of Paul Di Filippo's regular column for the title of the story itself. Post has been updated with the correct title.

As copyright issues have been propelled into the mainstream conversation, they have become an increasingly juicy target for lampooning by authors and artists. Satire is a clumsy tool for explaining an unknown concept, but an ideal way to skewer one that people are already talking about. Reader aethercowboy points us to a new creative construction of copyright found in the latest issue of Fantasy & Science Fiction, in the form of a short story by author Paul Di Filippo for his regular column Plumage from Pegasus.

In What Immortal Hand or Eye Could Frame Thy Dreadful Copyright?, Di Filippo muses about the effects of "life plus 70 years" copyright terms in a future where medical science allows people to live much, much longer (not an unrealistic notion). The story is no masterpiece—rather a quick scene geared at sci-fi wonks, heavily indulging in the pulp technique of tossing out references to unexplained futuristic details and relying on the reader's knowledge of science fiction tropes to fill in the gaps. It's like a less elegant version of Kurt Vonnegut's Tomorrow and Tomorrow and Tomorrow, with copyrights in place of beds. But Plumage from Pegasus is fun because it takes a central concept we talk about a lot—that copyright law is out of sync with technological realities—and pushes it to an exaggerated extreme in the way that only sci-fi can. Overall, of course, it's just neat to see the copyright discussion turn up in yet another cultural corner.

I'll leave you with the beginning of the story—you can read the whole (short) thing on the F&SF website.

Today was my father's five-hundredth birthday, and also the day that I had determined to murder him.

But before you think too poorly of me, let me inform you that my father was Arden Pence.

Yes, that Arden Pence! Creator and sole owner of what had once been one of the most beloved entertainment franchises in the inhabited Solar System: Rajah Robot and Poxy Toff, Oort Cloud Explorers. A multi-platform, full-sensory, optionally immersive fictional construct that had generated trillions in profits, but which, for the past two centuries, had not manifested a single new idea, instead gradually frittering away all its goodwill and prestige in an endless series of self-imitation and recycling, until now the series was practically a byword for staleness and decrepitude.

I was Arden Pence's sole heir, his son, Kilmer. Although a youthful two-hundred-and-sixty-five years old, I was not getting any younger, and my well of patience had steadily evaporated to undetectable amounts. For two hundred years I had been biding my time, watching in frustration as my father's intellectual property, the delight of my own childhood, dwindled and became a source of predictable mild amusement for the public, all the while waiting for some mortal accident—a quench in the nearest zero-point capacitor, a hail of rogue strangelets from an exploding spaceship—to strike my progenitor and legally deliver the franchise into my hands.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Twitter Suspends Four Accounts Critical of Sarkozy: Is This What He Meant By 'Civilizing' The Net?

Glyn Moody — Mon, 20 Feb 2012 12:58:00 PST

Nicolas Sarkozy, who hopes to be re-elected as French President this year, seems to have little love for the Internet. At best, he regards it as a "Wild West" that needs taming. Despite that, Sarkozy joined Twitter last week -- you can follow him @NicolasSarkozy. Posts are mainly written by his re-election team, although there seem to be a handful of personal tweets (marked "NS"). But at least he's finally engaging with the new medium on its own terms.

Or maybe not:

The morning after French President Nicolas Sarkozy announced he will run for a second term, several parodic Twitter accounts have mysteriously been suspended. @_nicolassarkozy , an account created in September 2010 and clearly labeled as a satirical Sarkozy impersonation, was suspended on Feburary 16th.

The account was run by the French website kaboul.fr: According to Kaboul.fr, which, after complaining, received an answer from Twitter, @_nicolassarkozy was "suspended after being reported." Twitter also told Kabul.fr that to be granted such priviledge, the suspension had to be made by Sarkozy, or someone acting on his authority.
Twitter's official response has been leaked: We have received a valid report that your account, @_NicolasSarkozy, is engaged in non-parody impersonation. Although Twitter firmly believes in the freedom of expression, impersonation that misleads, confuses, or deceives others is against the Twitter Rules (http://twitter.com/rules). Your account has been temporarily suspended due to violation of our impersonation policy.
The key issue here seems to be possible confusion, since Twitter's guidelines on Parody, Commentary, and Fan Accounts state: In order to avoid impersonation, an account's profile information should make it clear that the creator of the account is not actually the same person or entity as the subject of the parody/commentary. Here are some suggestions for marking your account:
Username: The username should not be the exact name of the subject of the parody, commentary, or fandom; to make it clearer, you should distinguish the account with a qualifier such as "not," "fake," or "fan."

Name: The profile name should not list the exact name of the subject without some other distinguishing word, such as "not," "fake," or "fan."
Maybe the account @_NicolasSarkozy has fallen foul of those rules, although it's hard to believe anyone would mistake a parody of Sarkozy for the real thing - it was not an "impersonation". But what about the other accounts that were suspended? three other accounts, all clearly opposing Sarkozy's political views, were suspended at the same time: @mafranceforte, @fortefrance and @SarkozyCaSuffit. Those accounts where not related to Kaboul.fr, nor impersonating local politician, but straight-ahead, and recently-created, politically-oriented Twitter accounts.
"La France Forte" -- "Strong France" -- is the slogan for Sarkozy's campaign, prominently displayed on his Twitter page, so the use of the phrase for Twitter accounts might be seen as confusing. But again, the content would surely tip people off that it was a parody. The last of the four accounts that were suspended recently is @SarkozyCaSuffit -- roughly translated as "Sarkozy, That's Enough". It's clearly what Twitter calls a "Commentary" account, making a very obvious comment about a political figure - no question of "impersonation". Unless there are any other grounds for doing so (and so far there don't seem to be any), removing it looks like pure political censorship in favor of Sarkozy.

We don't know at this stage exactly who asked for these four accounts to be removed, only that according to Twitter's rules it must have been done "by Sarkozy, or someone acting on his authority". We asked Twitter about this and it refused to provide specifics on why the accounts were closed or the timing, other than to say that just because the accounts were suspended in the same general time frame, it wasn't necessarily for the same reason.

Be that as it may, the near-simultaneous closure of four accounts all critical of a powerful national politician inevitably reminds us that for many countries, "civilizing" the Internet often comes down to censoring it. It's worrying to see France apparently starting to go down that route -- and for Twitter to be helping it.

Update @_NicolasSarkozy has been unblocked, but the other three are still suspended.

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

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Goodwill And Hospitality Theft Continue To Drive Up The Cost Of The Holiday Season

Tim Cushing — Fri, 30 Dec 2011 13:12:00 PST

Original concept and co-writing by Techdirt community member Nick Dynice.

This holiday season many lawyers, executives, lobbyists, and politicians will have their relatives, friends, and family members stay in their households. With the economy slumping, some out-of-town visitors can't afford to stay at hotels. When money is tight, these visitors know they can count on the hospitality of family and friends, who will welcome them in with open arms and good cheer.

However, these hosts need to remain vigilant and avoid being swept up in the general goodwill of the holiday season. In the rose-colored fog of the Christmas-to-New Year's festivities, it's easy for these situations to get out of hand. Guests have a tendency to get too comfortable very quickly and before you realize it, it's nearly February and a variety of house guests have begun to refer to you as "Dad" or "Grandpa" and you're on the hook for video rentals, dry cleaning bills and dental appointments. Your vehicle is now referred to as the "family car" (often by non-family members), your house has become a combination day care/animal shelter and your walk-in closet is now home to a family of Guatemalan refugees.

What starts as selfless "giving" swiftly becomes one-sided "taking." These interlopers are not only stealing the relatively priceless* time of their hosts, but also their unbillable goodwill. While "goodwill" would seem to be in infinite supply during the latter part of December, the available supply dwindles at a rate inversely proportionate to the number of hours the "family car" has been missing.

*Not actually "priceless." Billing for used time runs anywhere from $400/hr. [lawyers] to $55,000/hr. [executives] to $20+ billion/hr. [politicians].

The result of this goodwill "piracy" is nothing short of tragic. As time and goodwill are swiftly "stolen" by house guests, the host's direct family often finds itself having to do without. At best, they can only hope to have a few moments between meals and Immigration raids to angrily discuss efforts to block the rogue infringers, perhaps by seizing the guest bedroom and posting a sternly-worded warning on the door.

Fortunately, someone is doing something about this rampant thievery, and by "something," we mean making concerned noises and crafting acronyms. Harry Herman, chairman of PARFF (People Against Rude Family and Friends) noted that theft of hospitality is causing an estimated $300 million in losses to American families, resulting in fewer presents and lower quality meals.

"And that's just the stuff we can quantify," Herman said. "We have also noticed a distinct decline in the 'quality' of 'quality time' spent with originating family members as overstaying guests continue to erode the remaining goodwill. Did you know that 1 out of 10 'tweens' will be expected to cobble together an understanding of the 'birds and bees' using only 1970s back issues of National Geographic and filtered Cinemax? And that 4 out of 10 children under the age of 10 will spend nearly 400 hours over the holiday season being raised by the internet? It makes you fear for the future of humanity."

Chris Dolt, spokesperson for the AIL (Anti Infringement League) adds:

"The encroachment of friends and family during the holidays is the true Grinch Who Stole Christmas and Some of January. These infringing 'guests' are as much a threat to family harmony as the VCR is to the woman home alone. It starts out with too much bourbon-spiked eggnog and before you know it, Uncle Joe has committed 'goodwill' robbery in broad daylight, briefly aligning himself with the protesters uptown by hanging an '#Occupy The Robertson's' sign on the den wall before passing out under the Christmas tree. Industry estimates have concluded that hosting rarely-seen family members during the holiday season is equivalent to removing two presents from under the Christmas tree and throwing them into the fireplace."

Dolt continues:

"Not to sound heartless, especially during this joyous time of the year, but when it comes to 'goodwill infringement,' there are no 'innocent' infringers. Uncle Joe may claim that his drunken antics are a 'victimless' crime, but sooner or later, the hosts will find their previously innocent children raiding the liquor cabinet to spice up their Nesquik. The best choice is to take action against the infringer as quickly and harshly as possible. For the well-being of all involved, your best bet is to throw Uncle Joe into the fireplace, thus returning the 'goodwill' back to the long-suffering hosts, who can now observe first-hand that the uncle that is twice as drunk burns half as long. For more handy tips, please see my simple 41-step G.E.T.O.U.T. plan (General Efforts To Oust Unwanted Tenants)."

For suffering hosts whose goodwill, time and energy is in short supply, there is good news. 90% of all goodwill infringement is only temporary, ending by January 3rd at the latest. Both spokesmen caution against hosting mothers-in-law, second cousins, and lazy grandparents, noting that for these risk groups, 'overstaying their welcome' can often occur within minutes of their arrival, resulting in unprecedented amounts of "goodwill theft" with no sure measure of recourse.

The lesson for this holiday season? Good guests don't infringe.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Portlandia: We Satirize Portland, But If You Satirize Us, We'll Go Legal On You [Updated]

Mike Masnick — Wed, 14 Sep 2011 11:51:39 PDT

Make sure you see the update at the end...

A few months back, a friend of mine pointed me to some YouTube clips of the TV show Portlandia, the Fred Armisen/Carrie Brownstein show satirizing the city of Portland. The show is mildly amusing. However, it appears that someone involved in the show doesn't like it when anyone satirizes them. Ryan points us to the news that blogger/writer Jenny Lawson, a fan of the show, decided to use the create-your-own-products store Zazzle to make a parody of a Portlandia skit known as Put A Bird On It!. She created a tote bag, and put a dead dodo bird on it, with the phrase "Put a bird on it!" as well. She also linked to Portlandia, and figured that people would recognize that a dead dodo bird was clearly parodying the Portlandia episode. Apparently, the Portlandia people didn't get this and issued a takedown.

That's not where the story ends.

In response, Lawson decided to then mock the takedown itself, with this lovely design: With it, she included the following text: And... it took all of a day for Portlandia people to issue a takedown on that as well. This is both lame and idiotic.

It also turns out that Lawson is not one to give up easily, especially when being bullied in a ridiculous manner. She's now created three new designs -- one, two and three, testing just how far Portlandia lawyers want to go in this little dance. Designs below:

Put a herd on it, indeed. Honestly, it makes you wonder what the legal folks involved with Portlandia are thinking. I know it's made me not particularly interested in watching any more of the show.

Update: Looks like the Portlandia crew themselves didn't know this was happening. There's now an update on the post:

Holy crap, y’all. I just got an email from Fred Armisen (co-creater and co-star of Portlandia), telling me that he and Carrie have no clue why those bags were banned, and that they think they’re fabulous. Then he asked how they could help, and he and Carrie offered to sign some of the bags personally. Which explains exactly why I love Portlandia, social media, and birds. I considered making one saying “Carrie and Fred personally approve of the birds on this bag” (and then have them sign it, along with a notary public), but instead I just suggested that they sign one and auction it off to a charity that rescues birds from crack houses. And we’d call it The GET-A-BIRD-OUT-OF-THERE Auction. No word yet from Fred. It’s possible I may have frightened him.

Cool response to a bad situation that never should have happened in the first place...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Newspaper Claims Satirical Blogger Mentioning Its Name Is Trademark Infringement

Mike Masnick — Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:55:28 PDT

Gatehouse Media -- a smaller newspaper chain who actually had done some fairly innovative online things in the past -- has really become rather crazy when it comes to intellectual property lately. First it sued the NY Times for linking to it, then it threatened a forum site for linking to it with headlines and ledes (which most people consider to be fair use). Now it's going even further. Keyop points us to the news that the lawyers for one Gatehouse paper, the Utica Observer Dispatch have threatened a local satirical blogger with trademark infringement claims for the great sin of mentioning the name of the Utica Observer Dispatch.

We wish to advise you that the name, "The Observer Dispatch," that you are using is the property of GateHouse Media, protected by trademark and past usage rights. Your use of such name constitutes infringement of GateHouse's rights under federal, state and common law. Our proprietary rights in such name include the right to restrict the use of the name. It is important that we exercise our right to protect our name. Its serves as an important and distinctive representation of the origin of our products as well as the goodwill of GateHouse Media.

The blogger, Ray Jadwick, definitely makes fun of the Utica Observer Dispatch on his site, but it certainly doesn't appear to be trademark infringement. Making fun of your paper isn't likely to confuse even a moron in a hurry.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Details Emerge On Best Buy's 'Music Cloud' Service

Tim Cushing — Wed, 29 Jun 2011 15:35:00 PDT

Always striving to prove that they're on the cutting edge of the technological curve (how's that for "turning a phrase?"), Best Buy has announced that, why not? it will be offering some sort of music cloud service as well, thrillingly named "Music Cloud." While information is still trickling out as to licensing issues and whether or not the public was really crying out for a Best Buy-owned cloud service, a few details have emerged.

The following is a mockup (emphasis on the first syllable) of Best Buy's promotional ad copy for its upcoming Music Cloud:

Can't wait to do this "cloud thing" that everyone's already doing? Come to Best Buy!

Simply drop off your computer and one of our Geek Squad™©® members will get you "clouded" in no time.*
*"No time" = 4-6 hours (4 hour min. @ $79/hr.) to 4-6 weeks (depending on computer complexity/misplacement.)

Can't make it in to one of our convenient locations? Our Geek Squad™©® members will be more than happy to jam themselves into the nearest VW bug and get this "cloud thing" going from the comfort of your own home!

With either option, you know you're getting Best Buy's famous technical expertise!

In-Store Cloud Service

For just $79/hr. (4 hr. min. charge), your personal Geek will:

Stripmine your hard drive of all porn, personal photos, personal data, functioning AV programs and music files. Music will be uploaded to the cloud and accidentally deleted from your hard drive. All other items will remain in place but be conveniently duplicated to your Geek's personal "cloud" and uploaded later to Facebook and image boards.

Install trial version of various products, including the AV program you didn't want and multiple trial versions of software you'd never purchase. This "Convenience Package" can be uninstalled for $49.

Provide you with a link to your personal cloud ($29), an email verification form ($7.99)* and a complimentary USB drive (2 GB or lower) from the Returns pile to be used as a personal "take anywhere" pocket cloud or whatever.
* Optional email installation (Gmail, Hotmail or Earthlink - $39)

Sneeze or cough on your computer no less than four(4) times.

Possibly corrupt your hard drive. (Offer not valid in AL, HI or PR.)

Home Cloud Service

For just $149/hr. (4 hr. min. charge), you'll get all of the above, plus your personal in-home Geek will:

Disconnect your internet service ($19/per occurence).

Comment on the "loveliness" of your home. ($39-$99, depending on sincerity.)

Create some sort of error requiring a trip to the nearest Best Buy for repair. ($"Add to Cart" to see surprisingly high price.)

Hand-copy your login info to the back of his business card ("for quick reference").

Note: additional supplies needed to ensure proper home service will be added to the minimum bill. These include:

5' Ethernet cable - $39

Blank DVD to create recovery disk - $4.99

Complimentary Geek Squad pen ($0 if left behind by technician. Otherwise, $4.99.)

Screen defragmenter - $12.99/bottle (Active ingredients: isopropyl alcohol, Geek palm sweat)

5' Power cord - $19

Comment card - $2

With your music possibly loaded into our Cloud, you're now free to go anywhere* and listen to your music at any time!** And all for less than you'd spend on a top-end Airbook! Welcome (belatedly) to the future!

* "Anywhere" is defined as any of the contiguous 48 states (excl. TX, MT and VT). Your "Cloud" can be accessed from any Best Buy Certified Computer for up to 6 hours a day or 3 hours continuous play. Other restrictions may apply. See EULA for details.
** "Anytime" is defined as normal store hours. "Cloud" hours will NOT extend during the holiday season. Expect regular interruptions for scheduled maintenance, unscheduled maintenance, "someone forgot to turn it on when they clocked in" and inadvertent login info dissemination.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Forever 21, Famous For Copying Clothing Designs, Tries To Silence Blogger With Infringement Threats

Mike Masnick — Tue, 7 Jun 2011 03:19:31 PDT

For years, in the discussions on fashion copyright, we've defended the right of companies such as Forever 21 to copy fashion designs, make cheaper versions and sell them in their stores. Actually, Forever 21 is often the poster child of examples from those who want a brand new fashion copyright law. The company has also been subject to a few lawsuits for copying, most of which have settled. However, apparently, the company doesn't recognize the irony in then abusing intellectual property claims to threaten a satirical blogger, who writes a blog making fun of the retailer, called WTForever 21.

Of course, the main focus o Forever 21's lawyers is on the trademark claim, though there is a copyright claim in there as well. One would hope Forever 21's lawyers are aware of the pretty long line of legal decisions noting that websites critical of companies (often referred to as "sucks sites") are perfectly legal, in most cases, in large part because no one would confuse the sucks site for the original. That reasoning certainly applies here. Of course, Forever 21's lawyers point to the increasingly popular "dilution" interpretation of trademark law to claim that connecting their brand with the internet slang term "WTF" is diluting. This is, plainly speaking, ridiculous. Seriously, WTF Forever 21? Someone putting up such a site doesn't harm your trademark.

You know what does harm your trademark? Stupidly threatening the satire site, in the first place.

Separately, the lawyers claim copyright infringement (which, yes, is quite laughable coming from this particular company), because the blogger made use of images from Forever 21. Once again, while the specific uses may matter, it seems like there's likely a strong fair use argument here. But, even more to the point, it is entirely clear from the letter, that Forever 21's complaint has nothing to do with infringement of either trademarks or copyright at all, but the fact that the company doesn't like being made fun of.

This is not what either trademark or copyright law was designed to deal with.

Using both such laws for this purpose is clearly an abuse of the law to try to censor a critic. I may defend, strongly, Forever 21's right to copy fashion designs, but the company has gone way overboard here in an attempt to stifle speech.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Leaked Documents Show How The RIAA Plans To Spend The Limewire Settlement

Tim Cushing — Fri, 29 Apr 2011 10:23:47 PDT

The RIAA believes it is on the cusp of victory in its lawsuit against Limewire, thanks mainly to its large selection of damaging charts. However, it seems to be expecting the worst, if these leaked documents are any indication. All evidence below indicates that the RIAA will be willing to settle for only $15 billion (out of a possible $55 billion). Not only that, but it already has plans in place for the dispersal of the Limewire settlement.

Explanatory Notes

First and foremost, the legal war chest must be refilled. It never sleeps and it is always hungry. Copyright won't protect itself and every battle to secure these rights has become long, uphill and against the wind.

A $15 billion payout doesn't come around every day and our executives are justly entitled to a large chunk of that ($3.15 bil.). As an added bonus (to the bonuses), all executives will be treated to a celebratory blimp ride ($2.25 bil.). This dollar amount seems high until you consider that each executive will be requiring their own blimp. Previously, the executives had shared one blimp, but in the post-Napster environment, "sharing" is obviously no longer a legal option.

Other line items include the ongoing efforts in Washington to impose the RIAA's will on the internet, research and development and the opaquely-named "Other Expenditures."

(1) Other Expenditures
Having run the "Stealing a Song = Stealing a Car" analogy into the ground, we need a new "go to" catchphrase. Hence, $1.05 billion should be earmarked for development of a new anti-piracy metaphor. Suggestions include:

Stealing a song is like stealing a yacht.
You wouldn't steal popcorn, would you?
There's no such thing as a free lunch, free song or an infinite good.
File sharing is as un-American as immigration, outsourcing and opium production.
You wouldn't steal a blimp, would you?
Stealing a song is like kidnapping an artist's children and is punishable by a sentence of 25 years to life.

Other incidental expenditures include a much-needed re-upholstering of the executive suites and a celebratory hot tub full of money to splash around in with various members of the escort community, each of whom will be paid in full for their services, including any fees due for public performance.

(2) Research and Development
A lion's share of the payout will go towards the ongoing development of a time machine/wormhole to 1991 ($450 million). Many recent efforts have come close but the RIAA has yet to reach the pre-Napster days and develop a parallel timeline in which CD sales increase forever. On the plus side, it did manage to get our mom to hook up with our dad, thus ensuring our continued existence.

Other products/services on the way:

A computer-unfriendly music delivery system, much needed in this time of digital theft. Wax cylinders have been discussed as well as a partnership with RealPlayer, whose clumsy, bug-ridden software would likely prevent music from being enjoyed on a wide variety of operating systems.
"Lost Sales" calculation improvements, which should allow the RIAA to seek even larger damages from various file sharing services. It is hoped that we will finally reach the trillion dollar mark within the next decade. In addition, breakthroughs should also be sought in the "Shocking Graph" field, what with the recent success of the "Napster Ruined Everything" line graphs.
A partnership with the developers of The Club to prevent music from being stolen. A possible route would be some sort of clamp that could be tightened around an ethernet cable to prevent uploading. In other words, not so much "throttling" as "strangling."
Domain seizure technology, via the RIAA's partnership with ICE, which has already proven its ability to take thousands of sites offline despite lack of evidence or proper investigative techniques. On the front burner: cooperating with ICE's takedown of many large pharmaceutical companies who continue to make themselves rich off various anti-seizure remedies, including the weirdly-named Antivan and Dilantin.

Royalty Payments

Royalty disbursements, as expected, will be delivered in a "top down" fashion. Those artists with the most sales will receive a disproportionately large share of the proceeds. After the "Big 3" are taken care of (and a chunk of money thrown towards Paul McGuiness in hopes that some of it lands in his mouth), the remaining funds will be dispersed to yet more lawyers and an appreciable amount ($300,000 ) put towards the ongoing health of Jon Bon Jovi's remaining hair. It is hoped that he will be able to put off his eventual "Trump Hair" for another 7-10 years, thus ensuring his continued success in the field of "fairly attractive frontmen." See footnotes for royalty dispersals.

*Charting Artists

$300,000 will be divided evenly among those artists currently in the Top 40 at the point of dispersal. If said artist happen to include any of the "Big 3," well, I suppose the rest of you should just write better hits, right? There's no crying in the music industry, especially if you're unrecouped.

*Non-Charting Artists

The remainder of the RIAA's roster will split $150,000. To qualify for payment, bands/musicians must have a viable Wikipedia page (stubs and pages slated for deletion do not count) and a web presence that includes more than just a long-abandoned MySpace page. (Try Facebook.)

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Some Modest Proposals To 'Save' Other Industries

Mike Masnick — Tue, 24 Aug 2010 13:38:00 PDT

greenbird writes "In light of the RIAA/NAB negotiations to require FM radios in all portable devices Wired's Underwire column has a brilliant idea to "save" the newspaper industry. Require e-reader sellers to give a free parakeet with every e-reader. It goes on to other brilliant plans to save dieing industries such as the Mapmakers and Travel Agents."

Given some of the bizarre rationales for saving certain industries, I don't think any of these satirical suggestions are really any more ridiculous...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Copyright And The First Amendment: Lack Of Satire Coverage Leads To Stifling Of Speech

Mike Masnick — Fri, 25 Jun 2010 19:39:00 PDT

As has been discussed many times in the past, the courts have dealt with the inherent conflict between copyright law and the First Amendment by saying that the two "safety valves" of "fair use" and "the idea/expression dichotomy" helped make sure that speech was not really stifled under copyright law. Of course, there are tons of examples where these "valves" don't work -- and one clear one is the bizarre and still not clearly explained distinction between "parody" and "satire." Parody is considered a valid fair use defense, while satire is not. The distinction is mostly about whether or not the work in question is "commenting on" the work that it is using (parody) or using the work to comment on something else (satire).

Copyright litigator Ray Dowd recently discussed this issue in questioning the famous Ninth Circuit decision back in 1997 that more or less set the ground rules here, Dr. Seuss vs. Penguin Books about whether or not a book called The Cat Not In the Hat was protected fair use. The court ruled that it was not, because the work was satire -- and since it used the Dr. Seuss characters not to comment on Dr. Seuss or "the cat in the hat," but to comment on the OJ Simpson trial, that it was not protected under fair use. As Dowd notes, this would seem likely to stifle political speech:

So if I want to draw former President George W. Bush as Mickey Mouse and parody him by placing him in a Mickey/Minnie scenario, by this logic Disney can stop me from engaging in this core political speech because I am not making fun of Mickey, only of the former President.

How to permit political speech, promote creativity and maximize economic welfare for both copyright creators and society in general are questions implicated in these debates, with the cultural pendulum slowly swinging towards the Remix culture camp. There are a few signs that legal culture is moving in that direction, with judges taking a more expansive view of fair use.

Along those lines, the EFF is now expressing concern over the recent ruling in favor of Don Henley against a California Senatorial candidate, Chuck DeVore. In his advertising, DeVore used a couple reworkings of Henley songs ("The Hope of November" and "All She Wants to Do Is Tax," which were versions of Henley's "The Boys of Summer" and "All She Wants to Do Is Dance"). The court, as in the Dr. Seuss case, noted that since DeVore's use was not parodying Henley, there was no fair use. As the EFF points out, this makes little sense, and leads to some questionable outcomes:

The videos were core political speech, the most protected form of speech under the First Amendment. Yet the court blocked them, relying on copyright law. What happened?

The trouble is the misguided way that some courts have distinguished "parody" from "satire" in when measuring fair use. "Parody," in the world of copyright, means using a work in order to comment on the work itself (or its creator). Parody gets a wide berth under fair use. So, for example, when 2 Live Crew famously sent-up Roy Orbison's "Pretty Woman," the Supreme Court found that the use was permitted. A "satire," in contrast, involves using a work to comment on something other than the work itself.

So at what point do the courts (or Congress) realize that not only is this distinction pointless, but also that this is a clear situation where these so-called "safety valves" to protect the First Amendment are not working. Political speech is being denied due to a law from Congress (who, we are told, "shall make no [such] law").

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Samsung Sues Satirist, Claiming Criminal Defamation, Over Satirical Column Poking Fun At Samsung

Mike Masnick — Tue, 11 May 2010 10:02:56 PDT

Mel alerts us to this story of Korean electronics giant, Samsung, and its decision to sue a freelance writer who penned a satirical Christmas column that poked fun at Samsung's well-known corruption and bribery issues. The writer, Michael Breen, a UK native who's been living in South Korea for a dozen years, wrote an English-language light satire (in English) for the Korea Times, where he joked about what sorts of presents public figures might send to others:

One item read that Samsung had sent to all employees photographs of the son of the firm's chairman with instructions for hanging the photo next to one of his father -- an allusion to North Korea's Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il.

Breen also wrote that Samsung, "the rock upon which the Korean economy rests, sent traditional year-end cards offering best wishes for 2010 to the country's politicians, prosecutors and journalists along with [$50,000] gift certificates."

As satire goes, it seems pretty tame (and, really, not that funny). But, Samsung went ballistic, suing Breen, the Korea Times and its top editor for both civil and criminal libel charges. Supposedly, after Korea Times ran a "clarification" that was written by Samsung itself, the paper and its editor were dropped from the lawsuit, but the suit against Breen remains. And, since there are criminal charges, not only could he face hefty fines (perhaps $1 million), he might also face jailtime. For writing a satirical Christmas day column. Tough audience.

Apparently, Korean defamation laws aren't just draconian, but they're also downright ridiculous. Truth? Not a defense. Satire? Not a defense. Basically, if anything you say harms someone's reputation, you've defamed them. Even if it's true or you're just making a joke. As the LA Times notes, Samsung says it needs to do this to protect its reputation worldwide:

Since 80% of its revenues are from overseas, the firm is sensitive to any "minor accident or mistake" that could adversely affect its international reputation, the suit said.

Uh, perhaps there's just a cultural mistranslation, but the stories about Samsung's corruption and bribery scandals are pretty widely known. Nothing in that column was going to change that. And, I would argue that, outside of South Korea, filing this ridiculous, petty and vindictive lawsuit over a joke is much more likely to harm Samsung's reputation than the original column (which was probably barely read outside of South Korea). And, doesn't something seem completely wrong when Samsung seems more concerned that its reputation will be harmed more by satire about its well-known and well-documented bribery and corruption scandals than the actual bribery and corruption scandals. If the problem is Samsung's "reputation" on the line, then perhaps the company should have thought of that before getting involved in massive bribery and corruption efforts...

The article also notes how this is basically a sign of how dominant Samsung is in South Korea, and how it more or less has power over the newspapers, suggesting that no one is ever willing to criticize them -- and that it's really using this lawsuit as a warning shot. If true, that's a huge shame for South Korea. If a company is bullying people for just making jokes, just imagine what sort of shenanigans it goes through for people who are actually uncovering serious misdeeds at the company.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Onion Puts Out An Equally Accurate Report On Recording Industry Revenue Issues

Mike Masnick — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:01:00 PDT

Ah, leave it to The Onion to successfully encapsulate the state of the recording industry with a report that is basically as accurate as most of the reports that come out of the RIAA these days:

The Recording Industry Association of America announced Tuesday that the combined revenue brought in by Warner, Sony, EMI, Universal, and countless independent music labels in 2009 totaled $18. "The music industry is back," RIAA representative Doug Fowley said. "Not only was Kenny Chesney's Greatest Hits CD purchased at a Knoxville, TN Borders for $12.99, but we also had two songs downloaded through iTunes, and our ringtone sales reached three." Fowley added that as long as no one returns or exchanges the CD, the music industry would continue to be a vital and creative force in American culture.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Decides That Fake Giraffe Attack Story Is Protected Free Speech

Mike Masnick — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 19:42:00 PDT

A few weeks back, we were a bit concerned about a judge's decision to force offline a satirical "news story" about a fake giraffe attack at the Global Wildlife Center in Louisiana. Just because GWC was worried that some people might take the story seriously, it doesn't remove the First Amendment rights of the creators of the satirical site. Thankfully, the judge now agrees and has removed the injunction and ordered GWC to pay the legal costs of the site's creators. The judge noted that while the center had some concerns about how the article was viewed, it doesn't change the fact that the content is protected free speech as satire.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Orders Satirical Site To Remove Joke Story About Fictional Giraffe Attack

Mike Masnick — Thu, 4 Mar 2010 14:50:00 PST

There are tons of "satirical" news websites out there (pretty much all of them are following -- not nearly as well -- in the trail blazed by The Onion) and every so often it is true that someone gets "fooled" by one of those sites. But it usually doesn't take long for the fooled party to set things straight. But apparently the Global Wildlife Center in Louisiana thinks that a satire about itself is illegal... and somehow has convinced a judge of that as well. Romenesko points us to the news that a judge has issued an injunction forcing a blog to pull down its satirical story about a supposed "giraffe attack" at the Center. The story was a play on the usual stories of tiger or bear attacks. Who knows if it was actually funny or not, but the Center's director is upset that "it's malicious and untrue." It's satire. It wasn't malicious, but the whole point is that it's untrue. It's pretty sad that the judge agreed to shut it down, and the Center's argument that it can't be satire because "the site isn't labeled as satire" is pretty ridiculous as well. Should everyone writing satire be forced to label it as such?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Twitter Banning Satirical 'Fake' Versions Of Politicians?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:21:16 PDT

It's certainly become popular on blogs and on Twitter to create "fake" satirical versions of various famous people. These are usually humorous (or they try to be) over-the-top representations of these celebrities. Usually, they are quite obvious, even to the point of saying that they are "the fake so-and-so" or clearly stating in the bio that this is fake. There should be no confusion around such things. However, a journalist in India who created a "fake" satirical Twitter profile for Indian politician Shashi Tharoor has found herself banned from Twitter without any explanation or chance to appeal. Now, obviously it is Twitter's right to decide whether or not to shut down certain accounts, but you would think with such an obviously fake profile that the company might be a bit more careful and, at the very least, communicate with the account holder about the issues with the account before just shutting it down.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

When Even Comedy Shows Are Mocking Attempts At Stronger Copyright Law...

Mike Masnick — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 04:22:26 PDT

Via Michael Geist comes a link to this segment on the Canadian sketch comedy/political satire show This Hour has 22 Minutes, where it totally mocks the claims that file sharing is killing the music business by highlighting the previous "copying technologies" (home taping, VCR, photocopier) that the industry insisted was killing content providers: While I actually think the bit could be funnier, it's pretty striking to see that sort of thing on a mainstream television program. More and more people are realizing that copyright industry claims have little support in reality, and that concept is starting to go mainstream.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Judge Decides That Calling Someone A Douchebag Is Okay... So Long As It's Funny

Mike Masnick — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 10:14:00 PST

Last year, a series of lawsuits were filed over the publishing of a book based on the hit website Hot Chicks with Douchebags. Some of the "hot chicks" and at least one of the "douchebags" claimed it was libelous. However, in a rather entertaining ruling, a judge has dismissed the case filed by three of the women, noting that after he "carefully scrutinized" the book, he determined that the use of the term "douchebag" along with the various photographs was "used for humorous social commentary" -- making it perfectly legal. So, kids, remember when calling someone names, make sure to do so in a way that is funny and used for social commentary. Otherwise you might not only look like a douchebag, but you might end up in court.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

How To Make Money From Piracy: Building Prisons

Mike Masnick — Mon, 9 Feb 2009 17:06:57 PST

We've often discussed various ways that businesses can learn to embrace piracy for the purpose of making money, but here's a new (if farcical) idea. Hypebot points us to the Pirates Prison Project -- a tongue in cheek suggestion for a way to use piracy to build up one area of the economy: prisons. The idea is that if we just start putting all those file sharers in prison, we're going to need a lot more prisons -- and isn't that just a business opportunity?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Humorless Guitarists Take Down Amusing YouTube Mashup Video

Mike Masnick — Thu, 7 Feb 2008 16:06:00 PST

About a month ago, there was an amusing viral video getting passed around that showed various famous heavy metal guitarists, where the filmmaker dubbed over the films really, really bad guitar playing. It was incredibly well done, as the bad guitar playing was perfectly timed to the actions of the guitarists. It was clearly amusing satire -- yet at least one of the guitarists in question was a bit too sensitive about it. The video has been forced offline, and the creator has had his account cut off. The video was pretty clearly a satire on the way these guitar players play -- and it's difficult to see how the video would hurt the artists in any way. Yes, some might claim that people would think they really played that bad, but the videos seemed to be pretty clearly labeled as dubbed. Of course, like so many other efforts to make some kind of content disappear, it wouldn't be surprising to find this video showing up on other sites (and potentially getting even more attention).

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story