Take-Two Interactive Appears To Be Morphing From Game Publisher Into IP Troll

from the devolving-more-like dept

There is this thing that sometimes happens to companies that are wildly successful where they stop focusing so much on making the things that made them successful and turn instead to intellectual property trolling. Think Atari, for instance. Atari was once a behemoth in the gaming industry, but have since been reduced to trying to bully and/or sue everyone who comes even remotely close to referencing one of its properties, rather than making any real hay in the industry.

This process of devolving from competing business to grifting troll is at its most obvious in the end-state, where Atari is now. I won't pretend that a company like Take-Two is anywhere near there just yet, but it is notable that we have seen a recent uptick in the company engaging in this restrictive and trollish behavior. Whether it's fighting its own modding community to release shitty versions of its own older games or filing trademark oppositions for axe-throwing companies (yes, seriously), this just isn't where the focus should be for a company known to make amazing AAA video game titles.

There is apparently more here than had been previously known. NME has a decent writeup discussing all the IP action Take-Two is getting involved in, some of which includes the examples mentioned above. However, it also includes a couple of other examples of trademark bullying I hadn't seen previously. The first deals briefly with an opposition for a trademark application by Hazelight Studios for its game It Takes Two.

The owner of Rockstar Games has filed hundreds of trademark disputes to the United States Patent and Trademark Office over words and phrases like “2K”, “Rockstar” and “Take-Two”.

This included the publisher attempting to file a trademark dispute over It Takes Two with Hazelight Studios. After being published in May of last year, the trademark was abandoned on March 20 this year.

As the post notes, the application was abandoned by Hazelight Studios in March of this year. There is no detail on offer as to whether Take-Two's threat of opposition was the reason for the abandonment, but that's mostly besides the point. That point being: this is a silly opposition to begin with. The studio's name being somewhat similar to the name of the planned game doesn't really point to any serious concern about public confusion mixing up the two. This appears to be pure trademark maximalism, or bullying.

The second might be closer to a valid opposition, though it still all seems rather silly.

A more recent and open trademark filing from Take-Two concerns Max Pain, a business which according to opencorporates.com promotes Twitch streamers, Youtube content creators and Esports teams. Max Pain was given an incorporation date (the date it can commence business) of June 29 2020.

Whilst the US Patent and trademark office doesn’t appear to list what this specific trademark is over from Take-Two, it appears as though the publisher is filing in connection to Max Payne, the series developed by Rockstar. The trademark dispute has been extended, and appears to be ongoing.

In this case, Max Payne and Max Pain sound the same when spoken, except that the services rendered appear to be significantly different. Sure, streamers stream video games sometimes. Yes, eSports involve video games. But is anyone really looking at a promotion agency for streamers and eSports teams called Max Pain and thinking that this has anything to do with Take-Two's video game franchise? That seems pretty unlikely.

But wherever you come down on these individual instances, it sure feels like Take-Two is becoming more and more focused on being the IP police rather than doing what made the company the giant it is in the industry: making outstanding AAA games. And that, in turn, feels like it could be the starting point for Take-Two Atari-izing itself.

And that would be a damned shame.

Filed Under: licensing, trademark, trademark trolling, trolling, trolls, video games
Companies: rockstar games, take two interactive

After Months Of Troubling News, Israel's Government Finally Limits Who NSO Group Can Sell To

from the tough-to-stay-solvent-using-a-'scorch-your-own-earth'-policy dept

Well, it's been yet another hilarious couple of days for Israel's NSO Group. I mean, not so much for NSO, which is currently sitting at the center of a raging dumpster fire of its own creation. But just because NSO isn't laughing doesn't mean it's not funny.

For years, it sold spyware to whoever wanted it. Those customers used the powerful phone exploits to target journalists, activists, dissidents, and high-ranking government officials.

Some of this had already been exposed by security researchers like Canada's Citizen Lab before the bombshell dropped: a list of 50,000 alleged NSO malware targets. NSO denied having anything to do with the list, but report after report tied its spyware to abuse by government agencies and quasi-political leaders like kings and princes in the United Arab Emirates, one who used the malware to hack the phone of his ex-wife and her lawyer.

France's President, Emmanuel Macron, was one of those on the target list obtained by journalists. This prompted the President (and other French government officials) to acquire new phones. Because of this, the French government has decided it won't be requiring the services of NSO in the future.

At the exact same time, MIT Technology Review has learned, French government officials were in the final stages of contract negotiations to purchase Pegasus hacking tools from NSO. The French were on the verge of buying the tool—in the type of deal that is typically worth millions of dollars—despite years of allegations that it was regularly being used to surveil and harass dissidents, journalists, and human rights activists worldwide.

But sources familiar with the deal say that the process fell apart after the accusations that French politicians potentially were among those targeted, and negotiations were broken off just a few days before the sale was set to take place. After publication, France’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs denied it was in the process of purchasing NSO Group tools.

That takes one customer off the list for NSO. The Israeli government -- after years of ignoring NSO's sales to human rights violators -- has further limited the company's market base, removing nearly two-thirds of the countries on its approved purchasers list.

The Defense Ministry has dramatically scaled back the number of countries to which Israeli companies can sell cyber technologies amid global fallout over Israeli spyware firm NSO Group, according to a report Thursday.

The updated November list consists of 37 countries, down from 102, according to the Calcalist business news daily.

Countries with questionable human rights records, including Israel’s new allies Morocco and the UAE, have been removed, the report said.

Much like everything related to the fallout from the NSO target list obtained in July, this could have been prevented if NSO had decided not to sell to governments known to routinely violate human rights or -- if it just couldn't help itself -- its government had forbidden sales of powerful malware to these countries.

Having fewer customers isn't going to help NSO climb back out of the hole it dug for itself. This trimming of its potential user base follows blacklisting by the US Commerce Department -- something that had an almost-immediate effect on the company's credit rating.

According to Bloomberg, Moody’s dropped NSO’s credit rating by two levels, asserting that the company’s risk of defaulting on its debts had increased and noting that the company has been losing money since 2020.

Not that NSO was in great financial shape to begin with. This was the second downgrade by Moody's, the first of which came a month before the July release of the alleged NSO spyware target list.

Moody’s said in June that it downgraded the company’s rating from B2 to B3, adding that its outlook remains negative. The report said most of the debt is supposed to be repaid in March 2025.

NSO has been offering up nonsensical and contradictory defenses of its actions for several months. Now, it's just flailing. It now wants people to believe its current woes are the end result of an anti-Israel conspiracy.

In a letter, [NSO] argued that the U.S. blacklisting arose from "an orchestrated campaign by anti-Israel organizations" that would result in hundreds of employees losing their job, according to Israeli news site Walla.

That's a ridiculous assertion. NSO would be toxic no matter where it was located. And it has had years to head off this sort of worldwide reckoning but chose to reap the profits, rather than control use of its powerful phone hacking tools. Investigations attributing phone hacks of journalists and human rights activists to NSO malware have been public knowledge for a few years now, and the company's response (until now) has been to do nothing.

By waiting this long to finally start addressing these allegations, NSO has limited its options to making nonsensical defensive statements and, presumably, starting to figure out how much its office furniture might go for at auction.

The same can be said for the Israeli government, which has been aware of these troubling allegations about NSO for just as long, but instead chose to urge on sales to human rights abusers, rather than discourage NSO from pursuing business relationships with governments that were always going to end up abusing the powerful malware. Due to this close relationship, NSO's problems are also Israel's problems, which is likely why even the Israeli government is trying to distance itself from the country's most toxic asset.

Filed Under: israel, malware, pegasus, spyware, surveillance
Companies: nso group

Even As Grifters Insist Otherwise, Courts Know That Social Media Are Not State Actors Because Of Section 230

from the stop-it dept

Over the last few years we've heard a lot of nonsense claiming that Section 230 somehow magically turns social media into state actors. This idea, pushed heavily by disgraced law professor Jed Rubenfeld has not fared well in court. As law professor Eric Goldman highlights, multiple courts have been easily rejecting these claims. Notably, they're mostly citing the failed lawsuit from PragerU that insisted that a very light touch moderation (filtering out a very small percentage of their videos from the even smaller percentage of users who turn on "restricted mode") was a form of censorship. The 9th Circuit pointed out that the 1st Amendment says otherwise (which is amusing since Prager himself pretends to be a big supporter of the 1st Amendment).

Either way, three recent cases claiming that social media were state actors all clearly and easily rejected those claims. The first two of these were pro se lawsuits that were mad about social media sites in semi-coherent complaints that the courts construed as liberally as possible to try to find any sort of legitimate claim, and the courts (rightly) found that those claims were barred because the social media sites (YouTube and LinkedIn) were clearly not state actors.

First up, a district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, which made short work of a lawsuit against YouTube filed by a pro-se plaintiff with a variety of different claims about harassment and hacking (that were somehow YouTube's fault?) leading to the suggestion (the complaint is not particularly clear) of a civil rights violation. The court points out that YouTube is not a state actor and thus there's no possible claim here:

Based on the Complaint’s allegations, it appears the named Defendants – a private social media company and its legal department – are not subject to liability under Section 1983. Cf. Prager Univ. v. Google LLC, 951 F.3d 991, 999 (9th Cir. 2020) (affirming the dismissal of a First Amendment claim because YouTube was a private entity and not a state actor); see also Rutenburg v. Twitter, Inc., No. 21-0548, 2021 WL 1338958, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2021) (“Federal courts have uniformly rejected attempts to treat similar social media companies [such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and Google] as state actors under Section 1983.”) (collecting cases). Sescey does not allege Defendants are state actors or that they had any connection to a state, county, or local governmental entity. Her Complaint does not allege any facts to show a “close nexus” between the private behavior of YouTube and its legal department and the state itself such that the challenged action here can fairly be treated as an action of the state. Leshko, 423 F.3d at 339. None of Sescey’s allegations support an inference that Defendants are anything other than a privately-run social media company and its internal legal department.

The next one, filed against LinkedIn, requires barely more than a page to dismiss:

The district court properly dismissed Perez’s action because Perez failed to allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim. See Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 341-42 (9th Cir. 2010) (although pro se pleadings are liberally construed, a plaintiff must allege facts sufficient to state a plausible claim); see also Prager U. v. Google LLC, 951 F.3d 991, 996-97 (9th Cir. 2020) (internet media websites are not government actors under the First Amendment);

The other case, also highlighted by Eric Goldman, isn't a pro-se filing like the other two, but at least marginally (in the most marginal of senses) more serious. It was filed on behalf of Cameron Atkinson against Facebook (though the caption is now updated to Meta!) who claims that Facebook broke the law in "censoring" him. The details of the complaint are... really something.

Like many of his fellow citizens and students of the law, the Plaintiff, Cameron L. Atkinson is a thinker who, regardless of whether he is right or wrong, loves to share his thoughts and hear the thoughts of others. He regularly posts on Facebook about political and legal developments with the same civility that he would use in the courtroom or the classroom, seeking to engage in debate with the community of fellow law students and other friends whose respect he has gained.

The Plaintiff, Cameron L. Atkinson, is also an inquiring man who rarely rushes to judgment, often choosing to find out for himself before condemning someone.

Consequently, when Cameron L. Atkinson learned from friends that Facebook was censoring conservatives' posts that mentioned the name of Eric Ciaramella, the alleged Ukranian whistleblower who has provided the impetus for the pending impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, he decided to test the scope of Facebook's censorship himself.

Cameron L. Atkinson's first post occurred on the morning of November 11, 2019. He published a post on Facebook that read "Test post: Eric Ciaramella is a hero for blowing the whistle on the Trump administration's treason with Ukraine." See Exhibit 1

Approximately four minutes later, Cameron L. Atkinson published a second test post on Facebook that read "Test post 2: Eric Ciaramella is a dirty lying rat for trying to take down the Trump administration." See Exhibit 1.

Cameron L. Atkinson's object in publishing these posts was to see if Facebook would censor one post, but not the other.

Within 5 hours, Facebook removed both of Cameron L. Atkinson's posts with no warning or notification.

After learning of Facebook's censorship, Cameron L. Atkinson published a third post that read as follows:

I have conflicting thoughts about the naming of Eric Ciaramella, the alleged Ukraine whistleblower. Tattling in the dark shadows destroys public confidence in a matter of serious public interest. On the other hand, the vitriolic nature of our society may very well raise concerns for his safety. However, it may also end up protecting his well-being. Regardless, I think that people should be open to debating the merits of this serious public question.

See Exhibit 2.

Again, less than 5 hours later, Facebook removed Cameron L. Atkinson's third post without notifying him or warning him

The complaint alleged a bunch of violations of things that do not exist:

The Plaintiff claims a violation of his rights under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, violations of the Communications Decency Act, statutory fraud, theft, a breach of the implied warranty of fair dealing, and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUPTA)

The case was transferred from Connecticut to California under Facebook's Meta's terms of service, and then tossed out easily by the district court. The appeals court upholds the lower court ruling, but as Goldman notes, the ruling is a bit sloppy (and also they did it as non-precedential for unclear reasons).

But, as the court points out, the 1st Amendment claims are ridiculous because Facebook (shut up, it's not "Meta") is not a state actor:

The district court properly dismissed Atkinson’s First Amendment claim because he did not allege sufficient facts to infer that Meta Platforms is a government actor. Unless certain exceptions apply, the First Amendment only restricts government action. Manhattan Cmty. Access Corp. v. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. 1921, 1928 (2019) (enumerating exceptions). Dismissal is proper when a complaint lacks “a cognizable legal theory” or “sufficient well-pleaded, nonconclusory factual allegations” to state a plausible claim for relief....

Atkinson does not allege plausibly that the federal government “compel[led] [Meta Platforms] to take a particular action,” Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1928, or “exercised coercive power,” Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 1004 (1982). Allegations of federal coercion do not support the deprivation under color of state law that Atkinson pleaded. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Heineke v. Santa Clara Univ., 965 F.3d 1009, 1013 n.3 (9th Cir. 2020) (finding that private actors are only subject to § 1983 liability under a state action theory). Even if such facts could support his claim, Atkinson does not allege federal coercion sufficiently. Instead, his allegations cast Meta Platforms’ decision to adopt community standards as a self-interested business decision.

Atkinson also does not plead sufficient facts to infer that Meta Platforms acted jointly with state governments. Halleck, 139 S. Ct. at 1928. We need not accept as true factual allegations that Atkinson’s submitted exhibit contradicts. Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 759 F.3d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 2014). To the extent that Atkinson’s allegations are not contradicted, they still do not reflect joint action. Absent more, the fact that state officials responded to Meta Platforms’ unsolicited inquiries does not plausibly allege such a degree of “interdependence . . . that [the state] must be recognized as a joint participant” in Meta Platforms’ editorial decisions. Tsao v. Desert Place, Inc., 698 F.3d 1128, 1140 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). Atkinson does not offer other facts that would make a joint action claim plausible, such as an agreement between state governments and Meta Platforms; state participation in Meta Platforms’ corporate governance; financial ties between state governments and Meta Platforms; or Meta Platforms’ regulation of state activities. Cf. Brentwood v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 298–302 (2001) (explaining state action existed under such circumstances). We cannot infer that state officials “dominate[d]” Meta Platforms’ decision making from Atkinson’s allegations.

Then there's the question, pushed by Rubenfeld and other very foolish people, that Section 230 magically turns websites into state actors. The court says "nuh uh" without much elaboration:

Finally, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act does not independently transform Meta Platforms into a government actor for First Amendment purposes

Basically, that line of argument is so dumb it doesn't even require any analysis other than saying "no, that's not true."

As for "violating Section 230," well, that's not a thing.

Section 230 does not explicitly create a private right to sue, see 47 U.S.C. § 230, nor do its “language, structure, context, [or] legislative history” implicitly reflect any congressional intent to establish one. Lil’ Man in the Boat, Inc. v. City and County of San Francisco, 5 F.4th 952, 958 (9th Cir. 2021). Section 230 is not “phrased in terms of [individual] persons benefited.” ...

It's somewhat telling how easily and quickly courts are dumping these claims, at the same time that the usual grifters and nonsense-peddlers continue to insist that there's a reasonable legal argument that social media are somehow state actors. They are not and no one should take seriously anyone who claims otherwise.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, section 230, social media, state actors
Companies: facebook, linkedin, youtube

Senator Tillis To President Biden: How Dare You Nominate To The FCC Someone Prepared To Protect The Public

from the he-doth-protest-too-much dept

Senator Tillis penned a letter to President Biden this week that is breathtaking in its obtuseness. In it, he demanded that the President withdraw the nomination of Gigi Sohn to the FCC for having championed the longstanding ability of the public to receive over-the-air signals on public airwaves. Or, in other words, for having done exactly what we should want an FCC commissioner, tasked with the stewardship of the nation's spectrum, to do.

In his outrage at how fit for purpose her career has been for this role, Tillis betrays how badly his own office has abandoned the same public interest she has long protected. In particular, by overstating the upshot of a single court's never-reviewed decision, and making other unfounded, scurrilous accusations against her, Tillis falsely suggests it was she who has somehow done wrong in supporting Locast. And by taking the side of the plaintiffs he gladly turns a blind eye to the actual wrong that has been committed against the public by the broadcasters who, in suing Locast, have succeeded in robbing the public of the benefit of its own broadcast spectrum.

It's a serious deprivation that Senator Tillis seems all too eager to condone, because what he conveniently ignores is that spectrum licenses aren't supposed to be gifts to licensees for them to monopolize for their own self-interest. Rather, the quid-pro-quo behind the licensing of this public resource is to make sure that, by letting broadcasters use the spectrum for their programming, the public will then get the benefit of that programming. If there's no benefit to be had, then there's no point in the public ever licensing the spectrum to broadcasters in the first place.

Yet that's where we are, with much of the public now cut off from their own public airwaves and the programming they are supposed to be able to receive. Because for the many people who live in areas with poor reception, or who don't have rabbit ears (when's the last time you saw a tv sold with a set?), or who can't afford (or are not interested in affording) the hefty monthly charge needed for a cable subscription in order to get access to the over-the-air stations they should otherwise be able to watch, it was only with the antenna-renting services like Locast that they could finally enjoy the programming to which they are entitled. But now, thanks to certain broadcasters misusing copyright law and their privileged position as incumbent public spectrum licensees to shut these services down, they can't.

If these broadcasters are no longer interested in providing over-the-air programming to the public, that's a choice they can make. In finding it so offensive that services like Locast would help their over-the-air programming actually reach public audiences it would appear that's a decision they have indeed made. But then they should have to relinquish the spectrum so that it can be reallocated to someone who does want to make use of the spectrum license to provide over-the-air programming to the public. In any case they should NOT be able to cut the public off from ALL broadcast programming just because they don't want to reach the public that way anymore themselves. Yet that's what they have done, because with no more Locast, and no more Aereo, it's not just their programming that the public has lost access to but the programming of every other broadcaster, including those who depend on over-the-air reception for their stations to survive, since now the public has no way of receiving their channels either.

It's a deplorable state of affairs out of step with the spirit, if not also letter, of public spectrum licensing, as well as the constitutional purpose of copyright law to promote the progress of knowledge and culture, which has now been physically obstructed by the loss of these antenna-renting services. And it's about time we had someone in Washington ready, willing, and able to stand up for the public and do something about it. It shouldn't just be Gigi Sohn of course – Congress itself needs to be a better steward of the public interest in situations like these where it has been so conspicuously subordinated – but she's a great start.

Filed Under: copyright, fcc, gigi sohn, public spectrum, thom tillis
Companies: locast

Daily Deal: The 2021 CompTIA Security Infrastructure Expert Bundle

from the good-deals-on-cool-stuff dept

The 2021 CompTIA Security Infrastructure Expert Bundle has 4 courses to help you learn how to mitigate attacks and vulnerabilities. The courses will help prepare you to sit for exams on CompTIA CASP, PenTest, CySA, and Security. It's on sale for $30. Use the code CMSAVE70 at checkout to get an additional 70% off this and other elearning offers in the store.

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.

Filed Under: daily deal

Big Telecom Continues Its Global Quest To Tax Big Tech For No Good Reason

from the troll-tolls dept

A few months back we noted how FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr had taken to Newsweek to dust off a fifteen year old AT&T talking point. Namely that "big tech" companies get a "free ride" on telecom networks, and, as a result, should throw billions of dollars at "big telecom" for no real reason. You'll recall it was this exact argument that launched the net neutrality debate, when former AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre proclaimed that Google wouldn't be allowed to "ride his pipes for free." Basically, telecom giants have long wanted somebody else to fund network builds they routinely leave half finished despite billions in subsidies.

While this dumb argument originated with AT&T, it has been adopted by countless international telecoms over the years. Like this week, when a coalition of 13 large European telecom companies signed a joint letter demanding that U.S. tech giants pay them more money for no coherent reason:

"Large and increasing part of network traffic is generated and monetized by big tech platforms, but it requires continuous, intensive network investment and planning by the telecommunications sector. This model—which enables EU citizens to enjoy the fruits of the digital transformation—can only be sustainable if such big tech platforms also contribute fairly to network costs."

Again, this is the idiotic argument that just never dies. We had an entire fifteen year net neutrality debate over this that nobody appears to have learned much from.

Tech giants like Google already pay for not only bandwidth, but they own billions of dollars worth of transit routes, undersea cables, and other infrastructure (Google even runs its own residential ISP). Consumers also pay an arm and a leg for bandwidth thanks to heavily monopolized telecom markets. This idea that anybody in this chain gets a free ride is absolutely ridiculous. Telecom giants regularly enjoy fat profits thanks to limited competition and largely feckless government oversight. They're also endlessly subsidized to finish networks routinely left mysteriously undercooked.

Telecom is basically just trying to exploit its market power in a bid to nab an unnecessary troll toll. Yet despite being in bad faith with little merit, it doesn't take much for telecom giants to dust off the dumb argument and re-inject it into the discourse every few years. That's thanks in large part to unskeptical news outlets like Reuters that parrot the claims in good faith, without including any important context. For example, Reuters frames the entire debate like this:

"The call by the CEOs comes as the telecoms industry faces massive investments for 5G, fibre and cable networks to cope with data and cloud services provided by Netflix and Google's YouTube and Facebook.

Reuters doesn't deem it worth mentioning that it's consumers demanding access to those services. Consumers that already pay their regional telecom monopoly an arm and a leg for broadband. This demand isn't somehow "big tech's" fault. Nor is it somehow big tech's responsibility to pay an extra troll toll if an ISP fails to meet consumer bandwidth demand despite bloated revenues. Reuters (much like telecom allies like the FCC's Brendan Carr) also somehow omits how global telecom giants routinely underinvest in network upgrades despite billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors over a period of decades.

It's just uncanny how telecom just keeps trotting out the same dumb argument that it deserves to be paid extra for no coherent reason, and the majority of news outlets parrot the request as if it's actually being made in good faith.

Filed Under: brendand carr, fcc, free ride, internet services, internet taxes, net neutrality, telcos

Disney Yanks China-Mocking Simpsons Episode From Its Hong Kong Streaming Service

from the for-reasons-only-understandable-to-multi-national-conglomerates dept

American companies still give China what it wants. Y THO?

The only thing that can be gained from maintaining whatever the fuck a "good relationship" with the world's most powerful autocracy is… more subjugation! Who would want that?

I wish this was rhetorical but it seems plenty of entities want to be bossed around by the Big Red Bully, ranging from the NBA to a variety of tech companies which consider a potential market of billions more valuable than their credibility.

So, who's caving to the always unreasonable demands of China and its head of state, Winnie the Pooh? Why, it's none other than Disney, the current host for every Simpsons episode ever. And what's getting pulled? It's a Simpsons episode that chose to portray China the way China would not choose to portray China, according to this report from Narayan Liu for CBR.com.

Disney+ recently launched in the Hong Kong, a special administrative region that, until recently, officially functioned separately from China. Not everything will be available to Hong Kong viewers, however, as subscribers have found at least one episode of The Simpsons has been removed due to a reference to the Tiananmen Square Massacre.

Numerous subscribers and reports have surfaced, showing that the Season 16 episode "Goo Goo Gai Pan" has been removed in Hong Kong.

What's wrong with this episode? Tough to say since it simply repeats (mocks) the official party line. Here's a screenshot of the "offending" language China feels is too subversive to allow Hong Kong viewers to enjoy for what must be at least the umpteenth time.

It's a shot of the place where things happened in 1989, most notably a Chinese citizen staring down a line of tanks. But the Chinese government continues to insist this is a collective delusion and has worked as tirelessly as a country of kowtowed billions can to erase history. In this Simpsons episode, the illusion is complete. If you can't read/see the screenshot, it shows a monument apparently erected in Tiananmen Square that reads:

TIAN AN MEN SQUARE
ON THIS SITE, IN 1989,
NOTHING HAPPENED

That's what the Chinese government wants everyone to pretend to believe. So, what's the problem? Well, I guess Chinese censors are at least able to discern context when they want to. And since this isn't officially issued propaganda, it has to go.

But it doesn't. Disney could have ignored demands to remove the episode, if there actually were any demands. It could be a proactive move by Disney which makes it even worse. A country known for its casual disrespect for American copyrights and trademarks should be way up on Disney's shitlist, considering its efforts to extend all things IP to forever and a day.

Disney should be willing to flip the bird to a nation full of casual IP violators. Somehow, it's apparently not up to the task. Instead, it has (preemptively or otherwise) caved to the overseer of millions of infringers in the apparent hopes of retaining some relationship to millions of Hong Kong streamers, as well as the billions just over the imaginary property line that separates the region the Chinese government was supposed to leave unmolested for the next couple of decades.

Once again, we must ask: what is the fucking endgame? Do American companies actually believe that adhering their tongues to the underside of the Chinese government's boot will somehow exclude them from future censorship demands? All signs point to No.

So… is it easier than showing spine? It must be because we've seen similar acts far too often. China may have a supply chain stranglehold, but it relies on a steady supply of customers in other nations. With a little collective effort, this imbalance of power can be leveraged to make China more amenable to the freedoms enjoyed by customers around the world who purchase its products.

Filed Under: china, free speech, hong kong, self-censorship, the simpsons
Companies: disney

Miramax Survives Copyright Dispute Over 'Pulp Fiction' Poster Initiated By Opportunistic Photographer

from the royale-with-cheese dept

The iconic film Pulp Fiction appears to be a hot topic of conversation lately. We recently discussed Miramax's laughable lawsuit against Quentin Tarantino over his plan to offer NFTs for certain unreleased and unused portions of the film's drafted scripts, alongside the director's audio commentary revealing his thought processes and "secrets" surrounding the screenplay. While that whole thing is currently making Miramax look very confused as to intellectual property laws, there was recently a lawsuit ruled in Miramax's favor over the film's most iconic poster.

You know the image. It's the one with Uma Thurman laying stomach-down on a bed, smoking a cigarette, surrounded by guns and paperback books. The photo for that poster was taken by Firooz Zahedi at his studio in 1994 and has since become one of the most iconic movie posters ever. In May of 2020, Zahedi sued Miramax for copyright infringement over the extensive use of the photo on merchandise, claiming he never authorized its use for those instances. Miramax claimed the work had been done as a work for hire, which makes all the sense in the world, except, well...

Miramax claimed that he took the picture as part of a work-for-hire agreement for "Pulp Fiction," but sometime in the last 27 years, the studio misplaced the signed documents that made the agreement official, so it couldn't dig up anything to prove that.

Now, the whole "Sorry, the dog ate my work for hire paperwork" excuse typically doesn't fly well in court proceedings, no matter how much logical sense such an arrangement might make. In this case, however, I mentioned that the court found in favor of Miramax. How did that happen?

Well, it came down to the timing of Zahedi's suit coupled with the delay in filing it despite having documented knowledge of its wide use and distribution. And that documentation came in the form of an Instagram post.

Six years ago, Zahedi's stepson posted an Instagram photo of him with the action figure. The caption on that post read, "Happy Birthday to my Stepdad @fitzphoto [emojis] Turns out he didn't get toy royalties for his famous photo of Uma TM... But at least he has the toy now..."

Zahedi replied to the post, "Thanks... Sometimes it's best to settle for the little things in life."

In other words, there's a record in 2015 that shows Zahedi knew Miramax had repudiated his ownership at least that far back. The three-year statue of limitations for that ended in 2018, so as far as the judge was concerned, it was case closed.

And so the court indicated two things. First, the statute of limitations is 3 years from the time that Zahedi discovered the "unauthorized" use of his work, if we stipulate that this was in fact not work for hire. Second, that Instagram post demonstrates publicly that Zahedi had that knowledge in 2015. The suit was filed some 2 years late, therefore.

And so Miramax came out the winner. It may still be kind of crappy to not credit the photographer out of courtesy, but there is no legal liability here. And, frankly, I don't believe for a second that the studio didn't contract the movie photo as a work for hire arrangement, though it turns out that is not a factor in this ruling.

Filed Under: copyright, firooz zahedi, laches, pulp fiction, statute of limitations, uma thurman, work for hire
Companies: miramax

The Bad Apples Control The Bunch: USA Today Report Details Law Enforcements Punishment Of Good Cops

from the mediocre-cops-aren't-helping-out-either dept

Plenty of people try to minimize police misconduct by claiming what we witness day after day after day is just the work of a few "bad apples." That's only half of the adage, though. The rest of it notes that bad apples spoil the whole bunch. Keep bad apples around long enough and you're going to have to throw out the bunch eventually.

Apply this phrase to cop shops and you'll see why cop proponents only half-quote it. Apply this phrase to cop shops and you'll see where it completely fails: not only do bad apples make the good apples worse, but the bad apples have the power to rid the bunch of as many good apples as possible.

An investigation by USA Today shows why it's easy to keep good cops down and enable bad cops to do their worst. Law enforcement culture has dictated a thin blue line -- one that shields bad cops from accountability and allows even the best of cops to assume the public's unwillingness to turn a blind eye to misconduct makes them the enemy.

But the most dangerous enemies are those behind the blue line. And they must be removed by any means necessary. (Non-paywalled link here.)

To many in law enforcement, snitching against another cop is a betrayal that can’t go unpunished.

Those who enforce this code – the blue wall of silence – have stuffed dead rats and feces into fellow officers’ lockers. They’ve issued death threats, ignored requests for backup, threatened family members and planted drugs on the officers who reported wrong.

Department leaders often condone these reprisals or pile on by launching internal investigations to discredit those who expose misconduct. Whistleblowers have been fired, jailed and, in at least one case, forcibly admitted to a psychiatric ward.  

USA Today has receipts, thanks to public records requests and information given to it by law enforcement whistleblowers. There are good cops out there. But they're up against a system that equates reporting of misconduct to be a form of treason. Bad cops and their employers/enablers ensure no good deed goes unpunished.

In South Carolina, an officer leaked the fact that fellow deputies beat a prisoner who later died in custody. In Florida, a detective who specialized in child sex crimes reported a captain who had impregnated a 16-year-old girl and then paid for her to have an abortion. In Oregon, a sergeant complained that a co-worker bragged about killing an unarmed teenager.  

After speaking out, all of them were forced out of their departments and branded traitors by fellow officers.

The same silencing of whistleblowers we've observed at the federal level also occurs in state and local law enforcement agencies. Retaliation abounds. The "official channels" for reporting wrongdoing often involve officials whose wrongdoing is being reported. And if none of that works, a perverse form of peer pressure is deployed -- one that ensures whistleblowing cops will never have backup if they need it and will be frozen out of transfers and promotions.

No one is exempt, according to this USA Today investigation. Agencies large and small engage in these unofficial practices. Departments well-represented or run by minorities are no better than agencies with white leadership or whose workforce contains mostly white males. The presence of a police union may make things worse in terms of accountability, but even agencies without unions regularly punish whistleblowers. The only thing that ultimately matters is the profession: an equalization that serves the badge rather than the public.

This loyalty to each other, rather than their true employers (the general public), aligns law enforcement agencies with the criminal world, where snitching is an unforgivable sin that demands swift and brutal retribution. Officers who've abused their power are protected by a system that ends the careers of officers who want to see their agencies live up to the ideals they profess.

And, as if the point of this investigation needed to be driven home, a police union has stepped up to confirm the implications of the USA Today report. Not only is this officer no longer welcome in his own department, but his union has now basically stated it's willing to throw its (paid for by union dues) legal weight behind cops accused of all sorts of malfeasance but will have nothing to do with a cop who has exposed wrongdoing.

An Illinois police union on Wednesday ousted from its membership an officer facing criminal charges for exposing a squad car video that showed his fellow officers slapping and cursing a man dying of a drug overdose.

The case of Sgt. Javier Esqueda, a 27-year veteran of the Joliet Police Department, was featured in September as the first installment of the USA TODAY series “Behind the Blue Wall,” an investigation involving more than 300 cases of police officers over the past decade who have spoken out against alleged misconduct in their departments.

And as for the constant insinuation that law enforcement agencies harbor millions of "good" cops, contrary to public opinion, it would be nice if bootlickers and police officials could explain anything reported above, much less this damning indictment of law enforcement's unwillingness to police themselves.

Esqueda was one of 30 police officers who signed a letter to congress this summer urging lawmakers to pass protections for police whistleblowers.

Thirty. Out of nearly 700,000. Saying you're for police accountability means nothing if you're not willing to even sign your name to a letter asking federal legislators to stand by those who report wrongdoing. If you need a better argument for defunding police agencies, this is it. When a culture is so entrenched it can't be rooted out with gradual reforms, perhaps the better solution is to burn it to the ground and rebuild with better policies and protections in place.

Filed Under: bad apples, blue wall of silence, law enforcement, police, police misconduct