You may recall that about this time last year, the House of Representatives put together a budget that included funding for a brand new military branch dubbed the Space Force. At the time, our take is that this was always inevitable, as humanity tends to carry its war-making luggage everywhere we go and, since we go to space, we're going to have a Space Force. More surprising was the pushback from those who have a thing or two to say about military matters, such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, who noted that setting up a new military branch was hellishly complicated, and required congressional approval.

Mattis, in a letter to Rep. Mike Turner -- an Ohio Republican leading the congressional effort against the Space Corps -- said he was opposed to adding "additional organizational and administrative tail" to the Pentagon.

"At a time when we are trying to integrate the Department's joint warfighting functions, I do not wish to add a separate service that would likely present a narrower and even parochial approach to space operations," Mattis wrote.

One can read that as government-speak for: "No, this is stupid, why are you proposing this, everything is going fine, hey, is this thing even on?" Currently, space-based operations for the military are headed up by the Air Force Space Command. There is no denying that orbital operations are critical to the success of the United States military, given all of the satellite assets currently floating around the near-inky void. There has also been no indication that the Air Force is not up to the job, given the current lack of space-based infantry skirmishes or ground (ahem) operations.

This week, however, President Trump directed the Pentagon to create his new Space Force. It would be absolutely absurd not to notice the timing of the announcement that grabbed at least some of the headline space from news organizations that would otherwise have been directed at video and audio of toddlers in cages as they wept openly for their parents. It seems the Dear Leader couldn't help but notice this timing either, even as he made his announcement.

In remarks that ranged over a variety of unrelated topics, Mr. Trump began by saying current U.S. employment levels were the best "in recorded history" and blaming current immigration problems on the Democrats, saying "we have the worst immigration laws in the entire world" and that ongoing issues could be resolved "very quickly if the Democrats come to the table."

Turning his attention to space, the president praised the National Space Council and its chairman, Vice President Mike Pence, for its work re-focusing national space policy, saying "for too many years, our dreams of exploration and discovery were really squandered by politics and bureaucracy. And we knocked that out."

"My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's greatest space-faring nation," he went on. "The essence of the American character is to explore new horizons and to tame new frontiers. But our destiny, beyond the Earth, is not only a matter of national identity, but a matter of national security."

Look, space exploration is sorely in need of funding. That said, nothing about creating a new fighting force for space is going to be quick, easy, or bring about the kinds of results we could see either by funding current space exploration organizations (hey, remember NASA?) or private companies now taking up the challenge. As the Pentagon noted in its response, this foray into the final frontier is going to take a long, long time to set up.

The Pentagon's chief spokesperson Dana W. White issued a statement suggesting the process will take some time.

"We understand the President's guidance. Our Policy Board will begin working on this issue, which has implications for intelligence operations for the Air Force, Army, Marines and Navy. Working with Congress, this will be a deliberate process with a great deal of input from multiple stakeholders."

One can read that as Pentagon-speak for: "Uh, okay, but this is going to take, like, forever." Which, honestly, is probably besides the point. Whatever you might think of the current politics and immigration policy on display, there is little denying that this grand announcement came on the heels of a deluge of negative press and headlines for the President. Whatever side of the political spectrum you're on, hopefully we're all in agreement that space operations are important. If we do, then we should likewise agree that callous calls for massive new programs and full military branches being used as a distraction are an affront to that importance.

Recently, Valve sent waves through the PC gaming world by announcing an upcoming policy change for its Steam platform: it will no longer enforce specific content rules and will allow all games as long as they aren't illegal or "straight-up trolling". Though it's not exactly clear what this means, the reaction from the gaming press has been largely negative, and it's hard to say how the new policy will be implemented — so this week myself, Tim Geigner and Cathy Gellis join the podcast to discuss just what's going to happen on the biggest platform for PC games.

Follow the Techdirt Podcast on Soundcloud, subscribe via iTunes or Google Play, or grab the RSS feed. You can also keep up with all the latest episodes right here on Techdirt.

People tend to think of the GDPR as regulation companies must comply with. But thanks to a decision by the Court of Appeals for the EU earlier this month, there's particular reason to believe that ordinary Internet users will need to worry about complying with it as well.

In this decision the court found that the administrator of a fan page on Facebook is jointly responsible with Facebook for the processing of its visitors' data. And, as such, the administrator must comply with applicable data processing regulations – which necessarily include the GDPR.

The fan page at issue in this case appears to be run by some sort of enterprise, "Wirtschaftsakademie." But fan pages aren't always run by companies: as the court acknowledges, they are often run by individuals or small groups of individuals. Yet there doesn't appear to be anything in the ruling that would exempt them from its holding. Indeed, the court recognizes that its decision would inherently apply to them:

Fan pages are user accounts that can be set up on Facebook by individuals or businesses. To do so, the author of the fan page, after registering with Facebook, can use the platform designed by Facebook to introduce himself to the users of that social network and to persons visiting the fan page, and to post any kind of communication in the media and opinion market user data a processor of the data for visitors to its page, and thus jointly responsible with Facebook for its handling.

The problem is, compliance with data protection regulations like the GDPR is no simple matter. In fact, as this article suggests, the decision also potentially makes it even more complicated and expensive by expanding the jurisdiction of individual member states' data protection authorities (which was something that EU-wide regulation like the GDPR was actually supposed to minimize).

[Eduardo] Ustaran expressed concern in his 2017 post about the potential for local DPAs’ authority to issue decisions that affect companies located in other areas, in this case, Facebook, whose EU representative is in Ireland. He says that this goes against the letter of GDPR’s one-stop shop goal.

But even without this change to the GDPR's enforcement operation, the burdens of compliance were already a matter of concern. As discussed previously, compliance with the GDPR is difficult and expensive for even well-resourced companies. It's not something that individual Internet users are going to be able to easily manage, and that's a problem, because who would want to set up a Facebook fan page if doing so opened yourself up to such a crippling compliance burden?

Which leads to the essential problem here. Some cheer the GDPR because it puts user privacy front and center as a policy priority. In and of itself, there's nothing wrong with doing so – in fact, it's an idea whose time has come. But it doesn't matter how well-intentioned a law is if instead of merely regulating otherwise lawful activity it ends up suppressing it. And it's especially problematic when that activity is expressive. Even if chilling expression weren't the intent, if that's the effect, then there is something wrong with the regulation.

Furthermore, while it's bad enough if regulation chills the expressive activity of those well-resourced companies better able to navigate complex and costly compliance requirements, it's even worse if it chills the lawful and even desirable expressive activity of ordinary individuals. One of the things an Internet platform like Facebook does, and does well, is encourage the casual expression of ordinary people. If you have things to say, these platforms make it easy to say them to other people without you needing to invest in corporate structure or technical infrastructure before doing so. These are tools that help democratize expression, which ordinarily is something places claiming to value the principles of free expression should want to support. In fact, the more the antipathy against big companies, the more they should want to ensure that independent voices can thrive.

But instead we're seeing how all this regulation targeted at those big companies instead attacks regular people trying to speak online. We've seen the same problem with SESTA/FOSTA too, where individual online speakers suddenly find themselves risking legal liability for how they interact with other speakers online. And now it's happening again in the GDPR context, where the very regulation ostensibly intended to protect people online now threatens to silence them.

Content trigger warning: this article will discuss a bunch of nonsense being said in a major American newspaper about Google. I fully expect that the usual people will claim that I am writing this because I always support Google -- which would be an interesting point if true -- but of course it is not. I regularly criticize Google for a variety sketchy practices. However, what this story is really about is why the Boston Globe would publish, without fact checking, a bunch of complete and utter nonsense.

The Boston Globe recently put together an entire issue about "Big Tech" and what to do about it. I'd link to it, but for some reason when I click on it, the Boston Globe is now telling me it no longer exists -- which, maybe, suggests that the Boston Globe should do a little more "tech" work itself. However, a few folks sent in this fun interview with noted Google/Facebook hater Jonathan Taplin. Now, we've had our run-ins with Taplin in the past -- almost always to correct a whole bunch of factual errors that he makes in attacking internet companies. And, it appears that we need to do this again.

Of course, you would think that the Boston Globe might have done this for us, seeing as they're a "newspaper" and all. Rather than just printing the words verbatim of someone who is going to say things that are both false and ridiculous, why not fact check your own damn interview? Instead, it appears that the Globe decided "let's find someone to say mean things about Google" and turned up Taplin... and then no one at the esteemed Globe decided "gee, maybe we should check to see if he actually knows what he's talking about or if he's full of shit." Instead, they just ran the interview, and people who read it without knowing that Taplin is laughably wrong won't find out about it unless they come here. But... let's dig in.

What would smart regulation look like?

You start with fairly rigorous privacy regulations where you have the ability to opt out of data collection from Google. Then you look at something like a modification of the part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which is what is known as safe harbor. Google and Facebook and Twitter operate under a very unique set of legal regimes that no other company gets to benefit from, which is that no one can sue them for doing anything wrong.

Ability to opt-out of data collection -- fair enough. To some extent that's already possible if you know what you're doing, but it would be good if Google/Facebook made that easier. Honestly, that's not going to actually have much of an impact really. I still think the real solution to the dominance of Google/Facebook is to enable more competition that can provide better services that can help limit the power of those guys. But Taplin's suggestion really seems to be going in the other direction, seeking to lock in their power, while complaining about them.

The "modification" of the DMCA, for example, would almost certainly lock in Google and Facebook and make it nearly impossible for competitors to step up. Also, the DMCA is not "known as safe harbor." The DMCA -- a law that was almost universally pushed by the record labels -- is a law that updated copyright law in a number of ways, including giving copyright holders the power to censor on the internet, without any due process or judicial review of whether or not infringement had taken place. There is a small part of it, within Section 512, that includes a very limited safe harbor, that says that while actual infringers are still liable for infringement, the internet platforms they use are not liable if they follow a bunch of rules, including removing the content expeditiously and kicking people off their platform for repeat infringement.

The idea that "Google and Facebook and Twitter operate under a very unique set of legal regimes that no other company gets to benefit from" is complete and utter nonsense, and the Boston Globe's Alex Kingsbury should have pushed back on it. The Copyright Office's database of DMCA registered agents includes nearly 9,000 companies (including ours!), because the DMCA's 512 safe harbors apply to any internet platform who registers. Google, Facebook and Twitter don't get special treatment.

Furthermore, as a new report recently showed, taking away such safe harbors would do more to entrench the power of Google, Facebook and Twitter since all three companies can deal with such liability, while lots of smaller companies and upstarts cannot. It boggles the mind that the Boston Globe let Taplin say something so obviously false without challenging him.

And, we haven't even gotten to the second half of that sentence, which is the bizarre and simply false claim that the DMCA's Section 512 means that "no one can sue them for doing anything wrong." Again, this is just factually incorrect, and a good journalist would challenge someone for making such a blatantly false claim. The DMCA's 512 does not, in any way, stop anyone from suing anyone "for doing anything wrong." That's ridiculous. The DMCA's 512 says that a copyright holder will be barred from suing a platform for copyright infringement if a user (not the platform) infringes on copyright and when notified of that alleged infringement, the platform expeditiously removes that content. In addition to that, thanks to various court rulings, the DMCA's safe harbors are limited in other ways, including that the platforms cannot encourage their use for infringement and they must have implemented repeat infringer policies. No where in any of that does it say that platforms can't be sued for doing anything wrong.

If the platform does something wrong, they absolutely can be sued. It's simply a fantasy interpretation of the DMCA to pretend otherwise. Why didn't the Boston Globe point out these errors? I have no idea, but they let the interview and its nonsense continue.

In other words, they have complete liability protection from being sued for any of the content that is on their services. That is totally unique. Obviously newspapers doesn’t get that protection. And of course also [tech giants] have other advantages over all other corporations; all of the labor that users put in is basically free. Most of us work an hour a day for Google or Facebook improving their services, and we don’t get anything for that other than just services.

Again, they do not have "complete liability protection from being sued for any content that is on their services." Anything they post themselves, they are still liable for. Anything that a user posts on its platform, if the platform does not comply with DMCA 512, the platform can still be liable for. All DMCA 512 is saying is that they can be liable for a small sliver of content if they fail to follow the rules set out in the law that was pushed for heavily by the recording industry.

Next up, the claim that "obviously newspapers don't get that protection" is preposterous. Of course they do. A quick search of the Copyright Office database shows registrations by tons of newspaper companies, including the Chicago Tribune, the Daily News, USA Today, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the LA Times, the Baltimore Sun, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Albany Times Union, the NY Times, the Times Herald, the Times Picayune, the Washington Times, the Post Standard, the Palm Beach Post, the Cincinnati Post, the Kentucky Post, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the NY Post, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, the Washington Post, Ann Arbor News, the Albany Business News, Reno News & Review, the Dayton Daily News, Springfiled News Sun, the Des Moines Register, the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Branson News Leader, the Bergen News, the Pennysaver News, the News-Times, the New Canaan News, Orange County News, San Antonio News-Express, the National Law Journal, the Williamsburg Journal Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, the Jacksonville Journal-Courier, the Lafayette Journal-Courier, the Oregon Statesman Journal, the Daily Journal and on and on and on. Literally I just got tired of writing down names. There are a lot more.

Notably missing? As far as I can tell, the Boston Globe has not registered a DMCA agent. Odd that.

But, back to the point: yes, newspapers get the same damn protection. There is nothing special about Google, Facebook and Twitter. And by now Taplin must know this. So should the Boston Globe.

Ah, but perhaps -- you'll argue -- he means that the paper versions don't get the same protection, while the internet sites do. And, you'd still be wrong. All the DMCA 512 says is that you don't get to put liability on a third party who had no say in the content posted. With your normal print newspaper that's not an issue because a newspaper is not a user-generated content thing. It has an editor who is choosing what's in there. That's not true of online websites. And that's why we need a safe harbor like the DMCA's, otherwise people stupidly blame a platform for actions of their users.

And let's not forget -- because this is important -- anything a website does to directly encourage infringement would take away those safe harbors, a la the Grokster ruling in the Supreme Court, which said you lose those safe harbors if you're inducing infringing. In other words, basically every claim made by Taplin here is wrong. Why does the Boston Globe challenge none of them? What kind of interview is this?

And we're just on the first question. Let's move on.

What would eliminating the “safe harbor” provision in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act mean?

YouTube wouldn’t be able to post 44,000 ISIS videos and sell ads for them.

Wait, what? Once again, there's so much wrong in just this one sentence that it's almost criminal that the Boston Globe's reporter doesn't say something. Let's start with this one first: changing copyright law to get rid of a safe harbor will stop YouTube from posting ISIS videos? What about copyright law has any impact on ISIS videos one way or the other? Absolutely nothing. Even assuming that ISIS is somehow violating someone's copyright in their videos (which, seems unlikely?) what does that have to do with anything?

Second, YouTube is not posting any ISIS videos. YouTube is not posting any videos. Users of YouTube are posting videos. That's the whole point of the safe harbors. That it's users doing the uploading and not the platform. And the point of the DMCA safe harbor is to clarify the common sense point that you don't blame the tool for the user's actions. You don't blame Ford because someone drove a Ford as a getaway car in a bank robbery. You don't blame AT&T when someone calls in a bomb threat.

Third, YouTube has banned ISIS videos (and any terrorist propaganda videos) going back a decade. Literally back to 2008. That's when YouTube stopped allowing videos from terrorist organizations. How could Taplin not know this? How could the Boston Globe not know this. Over the years, YouTube has even built new algorithms designed to automatically spot "extremist" content and block it (how well that works is another question). Indeed, YouTube is so aggressive in taking down such videos that it's been known to also take down the videos of humanitarian groups documenting war crimes by terrorists.

Finally, YouTube has long refused to put ads on anything deemed controversial content. Also, it won't put ads on videos of channels without lots and lots of followers.

So basically in this one short sentence -- 14 words long -- has four major factual errors in it. Wow. And he's not done yet.

Or they wouldn’t be able to put up any musician’s work, whether they wanted it on the service or not, without having to bear some consequences. That would really change things.

Again, YouTube is not the one putting up works. Users of YouTube are. And if and when those people upload a video -- that is not covered by fair use or other user rights -- and it is infringing, then the copyright holder has every right under the DMCA that Taplin misstates earlier to force the video down. And if YouTube doesn't take it down, then they face all the consequences of being an infringer.

So what would "really change" if we removed the DMCA's safe harbors? Well, YouTube has already negotiated licenses with basically every record label and publisher at this point. So, basically nothing would change on YouTube. But, you know, for every other platform, they'd be screwed. So, Taplin's plan to "break up" Google... is to lock the company in as the only platform. Great.

And this leaves aside the fact (whether we like it or not) that under YouTube's ContentID system which allows copyright holders to "monetize" infringing works has actually opened up a (somewhat strange) new revenue stream for artists, who are now actually profiting greatly from letting people use their works without going through the hassle of negotiating a full license.

I also think it would change the whole fake news conversation completely, because, once Facebook or YouTube or Google had to take responsibility for what’s on their services, they would have to be a lot more careful to monitor what goes on there.

Again... what? What in the "whole fake news conversation" has anything to do with copyright? This is just utter nonsense.

Second, if platforms are suddenly "responsible" for what's on their service, then... Taplin is saying that the very companies he hates, that he thinks are the ruination of culture and society, should be the final arbiters of what speech is okay online. Is that really what he wants? He wants Google and Facebook and YouTube -- three platforms he's spent years attacking -- determining if his own speech is fake news?

Really?

Because, let's face it, as much as I hate the term, this interview is quintessential fake news. Nearly every sentence Taplin says includes some false statement -- often multiple false statements. And the Boston Globe published it. Should the Boston Globe now be liable for Taplin's deranged understanding of the law? Should we be able to sue the Boston Globe because it published utter nonsense uttered by Jonathan Taplin? Because that's what he's arguing for. Oh, but, I forgot, according to Taplin, the Boston Globe -- as a newspaper -- has no such safe harbor, so it's already fair game. Sue away, people...

Wouldn’t that approach subject these services to death by a thousand copyright-infringement lawsuits?

It would depend on how it was put into practice. When someone tries to upload pornography to YouTube, an artificial intelligence agent sees a bare breast and shunts it into a separate queue. Then a human looks at it and says, “Well, is this National Geographic, or is this porn?” If it’s National Geographic it probably gets on the service, and if it’s porn it goes in the trash. So, it’s not like they’re not doing this already. It’s just they’ve chosen to filter porn off of Facebook and Google and YouTube but they haven’t chosen to filter ISIS, hate speech, copyrighted material, fake news, that kind of stuff.

This is just a business decision on their part. They know every piece of content that’s being uploaded because they used the ID to decide who gets the advertising. So they could do all of this very easily. It’s just they don’t want to do it.

First off, finally, the Boston Globe reporter pushes back slightly. Not by correcting any of the many, many false claims that Taplin has made so far, but in highlighting a broader point: that Taplin's solution is completely idiotic and unworkable, because we already see the abuse that the DMCA takedown process gets. But... Taplin goes into spin mode and suggests there's some magic way that this system wouldn't be abused for censorship (even though the existing system is).

Then he explains his fantasy-land explanation of how YouTube moderation actually works. He's wrong. This is not how it works. Most content is never viewed by a human. But let's delve in deeper again. Taplin and some of his friends like to point to the automated filtering of porn. But porn is something that is much easier to teach a computer to spot. A naked breast is something you can teach a computer to spot pretty well. Fake news is not. Hate speech is not. Separately, notice that Taplin never ever mentions ContentID in this entire interview? Even though that does the very thing he seems to insist that YouTube refuses to do? ContentID does exactly what he claims this porn filter is doing. But he pretends it doesn't exist and hasn't existed for years.

And the Boston Globe just lets it slide.

Also, again, Taplin insists that YouTube and Facebook "haven't chosen to filter ISIS" even though both companies have done so for years. How does Taplin not know this? How does the Boston Globe reporter not know this? How does the Boston Globe think that its ignorant reporter should interview this ignorant person? Why did they then decide to publish any of this? Does the Boston Globe employ fact checkers at all? The mind boggles.

Meanwhile, we really shouldn't let it slide that Taplin -- when asked specifically about copyright infringement -- seems to argue that if copyright law was changed, it would somehow magically lead Google to stop ISIS videos, hate speech and fake news among other things. None of those things has anything to do with copyright law. Shouldn't he know this? Shouldn't the Boston Globe?

As for the second paragraph, it's also utter nonsense. YouTube "knows every piece of content that's being uploaded because they used the ID to decide who gets the advertising." What does that even mean. What is "the ID"? And, even in the cases where YouTube does decide to place ads on videos (again, which is greatly restricted, and is not for all content), the fact that Google's algorithms can try to insert relevant ads does not mean that Google "knows" what's in the content. It just means that an algorithm does some matching. And, sure, Taplin might point out that if they can do that, why can't they also do it for copyright and ISIS and the answer is that THEY DO. That's the whole fucking point.

Again, why is the Boston Globe publishing utter nonsense?

Is Google trying to forestall this kind of regulation?

Ultimately YouTube is already moving towards being a service that pays content providers. They announced last month that they’re going to put up a YouTube music channel. And that will look much more like Spotify than it looks like YouTube. In other words, they will license content from providers, they will charge $10 a month for the service, and you will then get curated lists of music. From the point of view of the artists and the record company, it’ll be a lot better than the system that exists now — where essentially YouTube says to you, your content is going to be on YouTube whether you want it to or not, so check this box if you want us to give you a little bit of the advertising.

YouTube has been paying content providers for years. I mean, it's been years since the company announced that in one year alone, it had paid musicians, labels and publishers over a billion dollars. And Taplin claims they're "moving" to such a model? Is he stuck in 2005? And, they already license content from providers. The $10/month thing again, is not new (it's been available for years), but that's a separate service, which is not the same as regular YouTube. And it has nothing to do with any of this. If the DMCA changed, then... that wouldn't have any impact at all on any of this.

Still, let's recap the logic here: So YouTube offering a music service, which it set up to compete with Spotify and Apple Music, and which has nothing to do with the regular YouTube platform, will somehow "forestall" taking away the DMCA's safe harbors? How exactly does that work? I mean, wouldn't the logic work the other way?

The whole interview is completely laughable. Taplin repeatedly makes claims that don't pass the laugh test for anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the space. And nowhere does the Boston Globe address the multiple outright factual errors. Sure, I can maybe (maybe?) understand not pushing back on Taplin in the moment of the interview. But why let this go to print without having someone (anyone?!?) with even the slightest understanding of the law or how YouTube actually works, check to see if Taplin's claims were based in reality? Is that really so hard?

Apparently it is for the Boston Globe and its "deputy editor" Alex Kingsbury.

The Ultimate Raspberry Pi 3B Starter Kit is perfect for anybody with an interest in STEM projects. You'll get a new Raspberry Pi 3, along with a Sensor Kit that has 37 sensor modules along with instructions for 35 products, allowing you to launch your Raspberry Pi journey. You also get 10+ hours of instruction of how to use it. Great for kids and adults alike, this kit will help you build games, robots, tools, and much more. Use the code RASPBERRYPI10 for an additional 10% off the sale price of $145.99.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Romance novelist Faleena Hopkins recently turned the rest of the genre against her by deciding -- with the USPTO's blessing -- she was the only person who could use the word "cocky" in a book title. Given the nature of romance novels, the striking of the word "cocky" left precious few terms capable of describing a certain blend of bravado and sexual prowess.

The backlash was not only immediate, but thorough. Authors hit with cease-and-desist notices posted these to social media. One writer filed a petition with the USPTO to have the recently-acquired trademark invalidated. To top everything off, the Authors Guild of America joined forces with two of the authors Hopkins sued. What Hopkins likely felt would be an easy win in a trademark infringement case is turning into another cautionary tale about questionable IP and heavy-handed enforcement.

As The Guardian reports, Hopkins has already been handed a loss in her lawsuit against author Tara Crescent and publicist Jennifer Watson.

In the case, heard in a New York court on Friday, judge Alvin Hellerstein described romance readers as “sophisticated purchasers” unlikely to be confused between different authors’ books, found that cocky was a “weak trademark”, and denied Hopkins’s motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order to stop the publication of books with the word “cocky” in the title.

The lawsuit isn't dead, but authors are still free to use the word "cocky" in book titles until everything's settled. The oral arguments [PDF] suggest the judge doesn't find Hopkins trademark arguments persuasive. Instead, the judge points out any restraining order would cause damage to the people Hopkins is suing, far outweighing anything Hopkins might suffer if other "cocky" products remain on the market.

[I]t seems to me that defendant, who is on the market with her romance novels, if restrained, would also suffer damage and it would be irreparable. If a book is taken off the market, it can't be sold. Books of this nature have to do with timeliness as well. So I can't say that there is any balance here. If there is, it is likely to tip in defendants' favor because a good portion of injury by the plaintiff would be compensable in damages and captured profits. So that factor is in favor of defendant.

Whether an injunction is in the public interest, given the way these trademarks are used, I don't think there is much of a public interest in them.

Here plaintiff can't demonstrate that its trademark merits protection, nor in my opinion that defendant's use of a similar mark is likely to cause consumer confusion. Those are the eight factors that we just talked about. Accordingly, the motion for a TRO and for a preliminary injunction is denied.

And there's this, which has nothing to say about the merits of the case, but does provide a brief glimpse of the intersection of the court of public opinion and the US federal court system.

THE COURT: You present in your papers about a dozen instances of prior use of "Cocky" in a title: Bite Me Cocky; A Little Bit Cocky; The Cocky Cowboy; Cocky Balls Boa, described as an erotic parody; Cocky Cowboys; Cocky SWATS; Cocky: A Stepbrother Romance; Cocky: A Cowboy Stepbrother Romance; and so on.

MR. REUBER: Your Honor, if I may?

THE COURT: No. You are out of the case.

MR. REUBER: I understand, your Honor. But I penned the brief, and there is an error that my client alerted me to this morning in the brief. Specifically, it is first one you just read, Bite Me Cocky, published in 2012. He has learned that that title may have changed as a result of the Cockygate sort of disputes. It might have been originally published as Bite Me and not Bite Me Cocky. I just wanted to point that out.

THE COURT: Originally Bite Me, then it became Bite Me Cocky?

MR. REUBER: Yes, your Honor. That was our understanding.

THE COURT: What is the explanation for the change?

MR. REUBER: As a protest, effectively. That is our best guess.

THE COURT: In response to the protest, he added the word "Cocky"?

MR. REUBER: In response to Cockygate registrations, yes, we believe the author added the word "Cocky" as a protest. That is pure supposition on our part, your Honor. We have only been doing this for about 48 hours.

The challenge of the trademark continues, as is noted at the USPTO website. If everything continues down this road, Faleena Hopkins won't have any trademarks to bully people with, much less a lawsuit victory to justify her bullying behavior.

By now it's abundantly clear that the Trump FCC's repeal of net neutrality was based largely on fluff and nonsense. From easily disproved claims that net neutrality protections stifled broadband investment, to claims that the rules would embolden dictators in North Korea and Iran, truth was an early and frequent casualty of the FCC's blatant effort to pander to some of the least competitive, least-liked companies in America (oh hi Comcast, didn't see you standing there). In fact throughout the repeal, the FCC's media relations office frequently just directed reporters to telecom lobbyists should they have any pesky questions.

With the rules now passed and a court battle looming, FCC boss Ajit Pai has been making the rounds continuing his postmortem assault on stubborn facts. Like over at CNET, for example, where Ajit Pai informs readers in an editorial that he really adores a "free and open internet" despite having just killed rules supporting that very concept:

"I support a free and open internet. The internet should be an open platform where you are free to go where you want, and say and do what you want, without having to ask anyone's permission. And under the Federal Communications Commission's Restoring Internet Freedom Order, which takes effect Monday, the internet will be just such an open platform. Our framework will protect consumers and promote better, faster internet access and more competition."

'Course if you've paid attention, you know the FCC's remaining oversight framework does nothing of the sort, and is effectively little more than flimsy, voluntary commitments and pinky swears by ISPs that they promise to play nice with competitors. With limited competition, FCC regulatory oversight neutered, the FTC an ill-suited replacement, and ISPs threatening to sue states that try to stand up for consumers, there's not much left intact that can keep incumbent monopoly providers on their best behavior (barring the looming lawsuits and potential reversal of the rules).

Over in an interview with Marketplace, Pai again doubles down on repeated falsehoods, including a new claim that the repeal somehow had broad public support:

Marketplace....this is not a popular decision. Millions of people have written in opposition to it. Public opinion polling shows most Americans favor net neutrality, not your open internet rule. And I wonder why you're doing this then? If public opinion is against you, what are you doing?

Pai: First of all, public opinion is not against us. If you look at some of the polls —

Marketplace: No, it is, sir, come on.

Pai: If you look at some of the polling, if you dig down and see how these polls were constructed, it was clearly designed to reach a particular result. But even beyond that —

Marketplace: It's not just one, there are many surveys, sir.

Pai: The FCC’s job is not to put a finger in the wind and decide which way the winds are blowing, it's to look at the facts and make a sober judgment based on what the law is. And that is exactly what we've done here. Moreover, the long-term interest is in building better, faster, cheaper internet access. That is what consumers say when I travel around the country, and I’ve have spoken to consumers in Los Angeles to the reservation in South Dakota, places like Dahlonega, Georgia. That is what is on consumers’ minds. That is what this regulatory framework is going to deliver.

First Pai tries to claim that the public supported his repeal, then when pressed tries to claim that the polls that were conducted were somehow flawed. Neither is true. In fact, one recent survey out of the University of Maryland found that 82% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats opposed the FCC's obnoxiously-named "restoring internet freedom" repeal. And those numbers are higher than they were just a few years ago. That the public is overwhelmingly opposed to Pai's repeal is simply not debatable.

When discrediting the polls doesn't work, Pai then implies consumers aren't smart enough to realize that gutting oversight of indisputably terrible ISPs like Comcast will be secretly good for them. He then tries to insist that public opinion doesn't matter and that he's simply basing his policy decisions on cold, hard facts. Which, for a guy that claimed during the repeal that net neutrality aids fascist dictators, made up a DDOS attack, ignored countless widelesly respected internet experts and based his repeal entirely on debunked lobbyist data--is pretty amusing.

Whether Pai's repeated lies result in anything vaguely resembling accountability remains to be seen. But based on the volume of time Pai spends touring flyover country, it's pretty clear he's harboring some significant post-FCC political aspirations. Those ambitions are likely to run face first into very real voters (especially of the Millennial variety) harboring some very real annoyance at his gutting of a healthy and open internet.

We've pointed this out over and over again with regards to all of the various attempts to "regulate" the internet giants of Google and Facebook: nearly every proposal put forth to date creates a regulatory regime that Google and Facebook can totally handle. Sure, they might find it to be a nuisance, but its well within the resources of both companies to handle whatever is thrown their way. However, most other companies are then totally fucked, because they simply cannot comply in any reasonable manner. And, yet, these proposals keep coming -- and people keep celebrating them in the false belief that they will somehow "contain" the two internet giants, when the reality is that it will lock them in as the defacto dominant internet players, making it nearly impossible for upstarts and competitors to enter the market.

This seems particularly bizarre when we're talking about the EU's approach to copyright. As we've been discussing over the past few weeks, the EU Parliaments Legal Affairs Committee is about to vote on the EU Copyright Directive, that has some truly awful provisions in it -- including Article 11's link tax and Article 13's mandatory filters. The rhetoric around both of these tends to focus on just how unfair it is that Google and Facebook have so much power, and are making so much money while legacy companies (news publishers for Article 11 and recording companies for Article 13) aren't making as much as they used to.

But, as more and more people are starting to point out, if the Copyright Directive moves forward as is, it will only serve to lock in those two companies as the controllers of the internet. So why is it that the European Parliament seems hellbent on handing the internet over to American internet companies? In the link above, Cory Doctorow tries to parse out what the hell they're thinking:

These proposals will make starting new internet companies effectively impossible -- Google, Facebook, Twitter, Apple, and the other US giants will be able to negotiate favourable rates and build out the infrastructure to comply with these proposals, but no one else will. The EU's regional tech success stories -- say Seznam.cz, a successful Czech search competitor to Google -- don't have $60-100,000,000 lying around to build out their filters, and lack the leverage to extract favorable linking licenses from news sites.

If Articles 11 and 13 pass, American companies will be in charge of Europe's conversations, deciding which photos and tweets and videos can be seen by the public, and who may speak.

In a (possibly paywalled) article over at Wired looking at the Copyright Directive, Docotorow is also quoted explaining just how massively this system will be abused for censorship of EU citizens:

"Because the directive does not provide penalties for abuse – and because rightsholders will not tolerate delays between claiming copyright over a work and suppressing its public display – it will be trivial to claim copyright over key works at key moments or use bots to claim copyrights on whole corpuses.

The nature of automated systems, particularly if powerful rightsholders insist that they default to initially blocking potentially copyrighted material and then releasing it if a complaint is made, would make it easy for griefers to use copyright claims over, for example, relevant Wikipedia articles on the eve of a Greek debt-default referendum or, more generally, public domain content such as the entirety of Wikipedia or the complete works of Shakespeare.

"Making these claims will be MUCH easier than sorting them out – bots can use cloud providers all over the world to file claims, while companies like Automattic (Wordpress) or Twitter, or even projects like Wikipedia, would have to marshall vast armies to sort through the claims and remove the bad ones – and if they get it wrong and remove a legit copyright claim, they face unbelievable copyright liability."

As we noted yesterday in highlighting a new paper looking at what happened when similar laws were implemented, the increase in censorship is not an idle threat or crying wolf. It happens. Frequently.

And, yet, we still have EU politicians and supporters of the Copyright Directive -- while they complain about Google and Facebook's power over the internet -- turning around and pushing for plans that not only will lock in both of those companies as the dominant internet companies, but also forcing upon them the sole power to censor the speech of EU citizens. And they're about to vote on this in just hours and don't seem to have the first clue about what a dumb idea all of this is.

It seems incredible, but the TPP trade deal is still staggering on, zombie-like. It's official name is now the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), but even the Australian government just calls it TPP-11. The "11" refers to the fact that TPP originally involved 12 nations, but the US pulled out after Donald Trump's election. The Australian Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade is currently conducting an inquiry into TPP-11 as a step towards ratification by Australia. However, in its submission to the committee (pdf), Open Source Industry Australia (OSIA) warns that provisions in TPP-11's Electronic Commerce Chapter "have the potential to destroy the Australian free & open source software (FOSS) sector altogether", and calls on the Australian government not to ratify the deal. The problem lies in Article 14.17 of the TPP-11 text (pdf):

No Party shall require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition for the import, distribution, sale or use of such software, or of products containing such software, in its territory.

In its submission to the committee, the OSIA writes:

Article 14.17 of CPTPP prohibits requirements for transfer or access to the source code of computer software. Whilst it does contain some exceptions, those are very narrow and appear rather carelessly worded in places. The exception that has OSIA up in arms covers "the inclusion of terms and conditions related to the provision of source code in commercially negotiated contracts". If Australia ratifies CPTPP, much will turn on whether the Courts interpret the term "commercially negotiated contracts" as including FOSS licences all the time, some of the time or none of the time.

If the Australian courts rule that open source licenses are not "commercially negotiated contracts", those licences will no longer be enforceable in Australia, and free software as we know it will probably no longer exist there. Even if the courts rule that free software licenses are indeed "commercially negotiated contracts", there is another problem, the OSIA says:

The wording of Art. 14.17 makes it unclear whether authors could still seek injunctions to enforce compliance with licence terms requiring transfer of source code in cases where their copyright has been infringed.

Without the ability to enforce compliance through the use of injunctions, open source licenses would once again be pointless. Although the OSIA is concerned about free software in Australia, the same logic would apply to any TPP-11 country. It would also impact other nations that joined the Pacific pact later, as the UK is considering (the UK government seems not to have heard of the gravity theory for trade). It would presumably apply to the US if it did indeed rejoin the pact, as has been mooted. In other words, the impact of this section on open source globally could be significant.

It's worth remembering why this particular article is present in TPP. It grew out of concerns that nations like China and Russia were demanding access to source code as a pre-requisite of allowing Western software companies to operate in their countries. Article 14.17 was designed as a bulwark against such demands. It's unlikely that it was intended to destroy open source licensing too, although some spotted early on that this was a risk. And doubtless a few big software companies will be only too happy to see free software undermined in this way. Unfortunately, it's probably too much to hope that the Australian Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence & Trade will care about or even understand this subtle software licensing issue. The fate of free software in Australia will therefore depend on whether TPP-11 comes into force, and if so, what judges think Article 14.17 means.

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

Jason Smith, over at Indivigital has been doing quite a job of late in highlighting the hypocrisy of European lawmakers screaming at internet companies over their privacy practices, while doing little on their own websites of what they're demanding of the companies. He pointed out the EU Commission itself appeared to be violating the GDPR, leading it to claim that it was exempt. And now he's got a new story up, pointing out that the website of UK Parliament member, Damian Collins, who is the chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee... does not appear to have a privacy policy in place, even though he took the lead in quizzing Facebook about its own privacy practices and its lack of transparency on how it treats user data.

Now, there are those of us who believe that privacy policies are a dumb idea that don't do anything to protect people's privacy -- but if you're going to be grandstanding about how Facebook is not transparent enough about how it handles user data, it seems like you should be a bit transparent yourself. Smith's article details how many other members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee don't seem to be living up to their own standards. They may have been attacking social media sites... but were happy to include tracking widgets from those very same social media sites on their own sites.

Julie4Sunderland.co.uk is maintained on behalf of Julie Elliott MP, a fellow member of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee. It serves third-party content from Facebook and upwards of 18 cookies on visitor’s computers.

Likewise, websites of fellow members Jo Stevens, Simon Hart, Julian Knight, Ian Lucas, Rebecca Pow and Giles Watling are also collecting data on behalf of the social networking giant from their visitors.

The websites of Julian Knight, Ian Lucas, Giles Watling and Rebecca Pow also collect data on visitors for Twitter. Meanwhile, Rebecca Pow’s website sets third-party cookies from YouTube.com.

Damian Collins’s website features a cookie message however the link in the message takes the user to a contact page that contains a form that requests the user’s name and email address.

The page on which the form resides contains a link that activates a modal window and encourages the user to sign-up for Damian Collins’s email newsletter.

Moreover, the Parliamentary page for the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport committee is also setting and serving third-party cookies and content from Twitter.

Now, you can reasonably argue that the websites of politicians aren't the same as a social media giant used by like half of the entire world. And there is a point there. But it's also worth noting that it's amazing how accusatory politicians and others get towards social media sites when they don't seem to live up to the same standards on their own websites. Maybe Facebook should do better -- but the very actions of these UK Parliament members, at the very least, suggests that even they recognize what they're demanding of Facebook is more cosmetic "privacy theater" than anything serious.