Stupid Use Of Profanity Filter Makes A Mess Of Virtual Paleontologist Conference

from the beavers-and-bones dept

We've known for some time that the sorts of automated filters that get applied to various internet-y things are flawed in the extreme. But of all the filters that annoy me the most, profanity filters are the worst. And, no, it's not just because I use curse words like commas. Rather, it's the combination of just how badly this is used, such as how Google thought for years that "bisexual" was a naughty word, along side how nefarious actors can block all sorts of non-profane language just by calling it profane. Add to all of this that a total lack of nuance for identifying so-called "naughty words" regularly causes perfectly non-profane content to be blocked or censored and this all begins to look like an exercise worth giving up.

For a great example of that last bit, we need only to look at a recent remote conference conducted by paleontologists that went awry due to a profanity filter.

Participants in a virtual paleontology session found themselves caught between a rock and a hard place last week, when a profanity filter prevented them from using certain words – such as bone, pubic, stream and, er, beaver – during an online conference.

“Words like ‘bone’, ‘pubic’, and ‘stream’ are frankly ridiculous to ban in a field where we regularly find pubic bones in streams,” said Brigid Christison, a master’s student in biology attending the event, in an interview with Vice.

Why, yes, that is really stupid. If your profanity filter is filtering out words you need to use for your field, then your profanity filter sucks and should be done away with. And, really, are members of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology really so sensitive that any profanity filter need be in place at all. These people are adults and can be trusted, not journalists for The New Yorker.

Now, much of the blame for this comes from the organizers of the event for some reason including a filter setup for typical business meetings.

“Apparently it came with a pre-packaged naughty-word filter. After getting a good belly laugh out of the way on the first day and some creative wording (my personal favorite was Heck Creek for Hell Creek), some of us reached out to the business office, and they’ve been un-banning words as we stumble across them,” an SVP member explained to Reddit users.

I'm not entirely sure why any of this is funny, to be honest. It's just annoying. Especially, as the article notes, when there are some curious choices made in the stock filter as to what words to filter out as profane or not. "Wang" is filtered for instance, despite it being a common last name, but "Johnson," which has the same slang meaning, is totally allowed.

Again, all of this is simply annoying and unnecessary. Trust adults to be adults and either not use profane words, or else be able to handle it if someone else occasionally does. These filters aren't working.

Filed Under: automated filters, content moderation, paleontologists, profanity filter, word filters

Jeffrey Toobin's Zoom Dick Incident Is The Perfect Example Of Why We Need Section 230

from the look,-it's-2020,-okay dept

I know that it's 2020 and the normal concepts no longer make any sense, but on Monday of this week, quite a story broke that spread quickly through the media world. CNN and New Yorker famed legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin was apparently suspended from both companies, after it was revealed that he was caught masturbating on a Zoom call with New Yorker colleagues, in which they were playing an election simulation game (that appears to be similar, but not identical to the election simulation game we created -- though I swear that ours does not involve any masturbating legal analysts).

Shoshana Weissmann noted that this story -- as horrific as it might be -- is also a perfect example of why we have Section 230.

Revealing one's self in a work setting can invariably lead to lawsuits. And if lawsuits are filed, Toobin, rather than Zoom, should be liable. Zoom likely had no knowledge of the incident until it was reported, nor did Zoom have anything to do with his actions. Toobin is also not an employee of Zoom. It is this same principle that Section 230 protects: that platforms should not be liable for content published by users. But platforms are liable for their own content that they publish, such as tweets from @Twitter or any static pages on Facebook.com created by Facebook.

It's this fairly simple concept that so many people seem to be having difficulty grasping: Section 230 is about the proper application of liability. The person who actually did the thing should be held responsible, rather than the tools that they use. That's Section 230 in a nutshell, and the reasoning is bizarrely demonstrated by what is now being called the Zoom Dick Incident.

Weissmann's piece goes on to explain why this is so important for free speech:

Furthermore, if Section 230 protections were removed, that would mean that websites would face liability for all user content if they moderated any user content. Websites would then moderate nothing, so they're not liable, or they would moderate so much that users would face massive barriers to posting. If conservatives think that too much of their content is being censored now, just wait until Facebook becomes liable for everything its users post. This is known as the "moderator's dilemma." In terms relevant to the Toobin news, Zoom would either have to allow everybody to show their genitals on the platform or strictly police meetings to ensure that none made it through. This regulatory burden would likely be crushing to new market entrants who lack the resources for a robust moderation program. As we learned from the GDPR regulations in Europe, these types of regulations harm competition by squashing startups and entrenching existing players.

If you read Techdirt enough, you know this already. However, if you hear people talking about the Zoom incident, now you have yet another way to talk about the importance of 230. Toobin should be held responsible for his own actions. Not Zoom.

Filed Under: intermediary liability, jeffrey toobin, liability, section 230
Companies: zoom

Supporters Of Using Antitrust Against Big Tech Should Be Very Disappointed In How Weak The DOJ's Case Is

from the this-won't-go-far dept

As you've already heard, the DOJ filed the long-expected antitrust case against Google earlier this week. Karl has already discussed how it appears to be a politicized weapon wielded by Attorney General Bill Barr to create a bogus culture war around how Trump is "taking on" big tech. Cathy has looked at one weird aspect of the case -- how its own argument regarding trademark genericide actually cuts against the idea that Google is a monopoly.

However, what strikes me as most noteworthy about the filing is how insanely weak the argument is. As was already discussed, many lawyers in the DOJ had said they really needed more time to put together a complete case against Google... and it shows. I know that the folks who have been agitating for antitrust actions against Google for years are cheering this on, but that seems incredibly short sighted. As is currently filed (and it will likely change!), the case is so weak that Google would likely win in court, and it would then be more difficult (though not impossible) to craft another antitrust case later.

First, the case is fairly limited in what it argues. It focuses on Google's search distribution deals (e.g. getting Google to be the default search engine in things like Firefox or iOS, for which Google pays many, many millions of dollars). This seems like a weird choice for a variety of reasons.

For years, Google has entered into exclusionary agreements, including tying arrangements, and engaged in anticompetitive conduct to lock up distribution channels and block rivals. Google pays billions of dollars each year to distributors—including popular-device manufacturers such as Apple, LG, Motorola, and Samsung; major U.S. wireless carriers such as AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon; and browser developers such as Mozilla, Opera, and UCWeb— to secure default status for its general search engine and, in many cases, to specifically prohibit Google’s counterparties from dealing with Google’s competitors. Some of these agreements also require distributors to take a bundle of Google apps, including its search apps, and feature them on devices in prime positions where consumers are most likely to start their internet searches.

It seems worth noting here that Google pays a ton for those deals. Mozilla practically lives off of that contract. If Google is somehow forced to stop, that'll do a lot more to hurt Mozilla/Firefox than help it.

Also, when you're talking about abusive monopolies, it's normally how companies use their power to drive down how much they have to pay (because they're the monopoly). And yet, as the filing itself shows, these search deals have involved strong competition from Microsoft, meaning that Google ends up having to fork over huge chunks of cash.

Under the current agreement between Apple and Google, which has a multi-year term, Apple must make Google’s search engine the default for Safari, and use Google for Siri and Spotlight in response to general search queries. In exchange for this privileged access to Apple’s massive consumer base, Google pays Apple billions of dollars in advertising revenue each year, with public estimates ranging around $8–12 billion. The revenues Google shares with Apple make up approximately 15–20 percent of Apple’s worldwide net income.

Perhaps my understanding of how monopolistic markets work is different than the DOJ's, but I don't recall ever seeing it described as being a market where the "monopolist" pays billions of dollars just to be an (easily changed) default. The fact that Google's deal alone is 15 to 20% of Apple's revenue (and Apple makes a shit ton of money) alone seems damning to the underlying argument for the case. If Google were a monopoly, then by any normal economic analysis, it would be driving down how much it pays because Apple would have nowhere to go. The fact that Google has to pay so much suggests that there's actual competition for these deals.

There is also the question of what users want. Frankly, if my phone/browser didn't have Google as the default, I'd change to it. I've tried the alternatives (Bing, DuckDuckGo) many times over. And they just are rarely as effective as Google.

The other troubling aspect of the lawsuit is that it insists totally reasonable (and indeed, important to protect consumers) activity is somehow anti-competitive. Some of these seem to put Google into a no-win situation. They would get killed if they did things differently, and they're getting killed for doing things this way. Here's an example. A key part of the DOJ's argument is that Google's anti-forking agreements regarding Android are anti-competitive. And, as someone who uses a non-standard, Android-based mobile OS on my phone, there are definitely times that I wish there were more competition in forking and building out Android alternatives. But there are non-nefarious reasons why Google would do this:

Google’s anti-forking agreements, however, have inhibited operating system innovation through forking, ensuring that manufacturers and distributors are beholden to Google’s version of Android. Distributors know that any violation of an anti-forking agreement could mean excommunication from Google’s Android ecosystem, loss of access to Google’s must-have GPS and Google Play, and millions or even billions of dollars in lost revenue sharing. Thus, distributors avoid anything that Google might deem “fragmentation”—a term that Google “purposely leave[s] . . . very vague” and interprets broadly.

Pursuant to the preinstallation agreements discussed below, Google also has final say over whether a device is found to be compatible with the technical specifications Google requires manufacturers to meet before they can preinstall GMS. As a Google engineer noted, it must be “obvious to the [manufacturers] that we are using compatibility as a club to make them do things we want.” Google views its anti-fragmentation mandate, and its final approval of devices before they launch, as a “poison pill” to prevent deviation from the Google-controlled Android ecosystem.

One interpretation is that this is anti-competitive and giving Google control. But, remember, this is open source in the first place. The only reason forking is even any option at all is because Google made Android open source. No one can fork iOS. Or Windows. Because those are proprietary. Just the fact that it's open source seems like a weird thing to be the crux to hang an antitrust lawsuit over.

But, more to the point, another (non-nefarious) reason why Google might make those agreements is to hold various device companies to a standard that delivers users the experience they expect. Without those agreements, then you could get bad implementations of Android in which lots of things don't work correctly -- and end users would likely blame Google for that. Also, fragmentation has already been a problem in getting some apps to work smoothly across the wider Android ecosystem. So the efforts at standardization for those who want to offer the wider Google ecosystem are easily explained for the benefit of everyone, rather than as some attempt to block competition.

The lawsuit then immediately undermines its own point that everyone is afraid to fork Android... by showing how Amazon forked Android:

Google’s broad interpretation of the anti-forking agreements, and the reluctance it creates among Android distributors to support alternative versions of Android, presents barriers to entry. These were on display when Amazon developed its Fire OS operating system, a competing fork of Android. Rather than preinstall Google’s search engine, GPS, Google Play, or other Google apps on Fire devices, Amazon preinstalled its own proprietary apps and agreed to make Microsoft’s Bing the preset default general search engine. Amazon originally sold only Fire OS tablets, but in 2014 it launched a phone that ran on Fire OS. The phone was not a commercial success and Amazon quickly exited the phone business. Amazon continues to sell Fire tablets, which account for less than two percent of mobile device usage in the United States.

Right. As the DOJ says, this ended up being a flop for Amazon, but that also undermines the case. It shows that users like the Google services and apparently were not as interested in buying a device without them. So, the entire crux of the DOJ argument seems undermined in the filing itself. Basically, the argument is that Google prevents people from forking (except it didn't), and then shows when Amazon did fork, and says that failed in the marketplace. Which just looks like evidence that Google isn't blocking competitors, but rather consumers just prefer Google's offering.

Also, as Alex Stamos pointed out, a key problem with the assumptions in the DOJ's lawsuit is that the lack of startups entering the general search market is because of these practices by Google. But a much more reasonable assumption is that building a good general search engine is fucking hard.

And, a few have tried over the years, but they've had trouble, not because of Google's search deals, but because their products just weren't that good.

If your goal was to breakup Google or even cause real harm for the company... this isn't the lawsuit you're looking for. It's one of the weakest antitrust claims I've seen. I'm honestly perplexed by the people cheering this on because it's so weak that it's not going to work and will make any real antitrust harder down the road.

I will note that this might change. I imagine that there will be amended complaints down the road, and NY's attorney general put out a statement noting that while she and the AGs of a bunch of other states are investigating Google for antitrust, if they do file a case, they will seek to consolidate it with the DOJ's case. It's possible that whatever case the states bring could be much stronger.

I'm open to being convinced that this approach will work, but as it stands, this case looks incredibly weak, seems likely to fail, and even if it somehow succeeded wouldn't create any real structural change. Indeed, at best it would just limit how much Google has to pay out to lots of other companies, which helps support the wider ecosystem. I knew that this was a blatant political move by Barr, but I still expected a lot more meat to be found in the filing.

Filed Under: antitrust, doj, exclusive deals, market power, search
Companies: google

Daily Deal: Personal Productivity Masterclass

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

Not everyone is gifted with the skill of organizing tasks and doing them the right way. Sometimes, it takes a long time to make our own system, be efficient, and improve our work routine. But that doesn't have to be the case. The Productivity Masterclass: Personal Productivity course has useful and time saving tips to increase productivity to a completely new level. No myriad of items to look at and no tough apps to tackle. You'll learn how to focus, stay active, and avoid procrastinating, and being a lot more productive. It's on sale for $10.

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

Trademark Genericide And One Big Way The DOJ Admits That Its Antitrust Lawsuit Against Google Is Utter Garbage

from the admitting-their-own-bullshit dept

Don't misread the title of this post to think there's only one thing wrong with the DOJ's antitrust complaint against Google. There's plenty. But on the list is this particular self-defeating argument included in the complaint -- the complaint where the DOJ basically has but one job: show that Google is a monopoly.

To understand it, we need to first understand the idea of "trademark genericide." That's what happens when your brand name is, well, just too good and people start using your branding as the default word to describe the product or service in general. Famous examples include "Band-Aid," "Thermos," "Xerox," and plenty of other words we're all used to using in lower-case form to describe things that aren't actually produced by the companies that had those trademarks.

The issue here is not actually whether Google has lost its trademark rights due to genericide, which is a technical question particular to the operation of trademark law and not relevant to the issues raised here. The DOJ isn't actually arguing that Google has anyway. But what it is arguing is that the same basic dynamic has occurred, where the branded name has become a widely adopted synonym to describe other people's similar goods and services. However, in doing so, it has blown up its own argument because that means there are other similar goods and services. Which means that Google is not a monopoly.

Look at what it argued (emphasis added):

Google has thus foreclosed competition for internet search. General search engine competitors are denied vital distribution, scale, and product recognition—ensuring they have no real chance to challenge Google. Google is so dominant that “Google” is not only a noun to identify the company and the Google search engine but also a verb that means to search the internet. [complaint p. 4]

This argument makes no sense. On the one hand it asserts that Google has foreclosed competition for Internet search, and in almost the next breath it asserts (and as an attempt at proving the first assertion, bizarrely) that "Google" has now become the generic word for Internet searching offered by everyone. If "Google" is now being used by consumers to describe the use of competing goods and services, it means that there are competing goods and services. Ergo, Google is not a monopoly, and thus the alleged premise for bringing this antitrust action is unsound.

There are, of course, many reasons why this antitrust action against Google is unsound, but it does seem odd that the DOJ would so candidly confess such a notable one in the introduction of its own complaint.

Especially because even the DOJ itself admitted later in the complaint that there are actually competing search engines, namely Bing, Yahoo, and DuckDuckGo.

Google has monopoly power in the United States general search services market. There are currently only four meaningful general search providers in this market: Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and DuckDuckGo. According to public data sources, Google today dominates the market with approximately 88 percent market share, followed far behind by Bing with about seven percent, Yahoo! with less than four percent, and DuckDuckGo with less than two percent. [p. 29]

But the argument it made in this later section to try to wish away the import of these competitors did not do much better than the previous one in the logic department.

There are significant barriers to entry in general search services. The creation, maintenance, and growth of a general search engine requires a significant capital investment, highly complex technology, access to effective distribution, and adequate scale. For that reason, only two U.S. firms—Google and Microsoft—maintain a comprehensive search index, which is just a single, albeit fundamental, component of a general search engine. Scale is also a significant barrier to entry. Scale affects a general search engine’s ability to deliver a quality search experience. The scale needed to successfully compete today is greater than ever. Google’s anticompetitive conduct effectively eliminates rivals’ ability to build the scale necessary to compete. Google’s large and durable market share and the significant barriers to entry in general search services demonstrate Google’s monopoly power in the United States. [p. 31]

Once again, the DOJ has managed to swing and miss in trying to argue that Google is a monopoly with its rushed and unthoughtful lawyering. Google obviously isn't, not with actual competitors, and the DOJ's apparent fallback argument of it being a monopoly somehow due to monopolistic effect similarly fails. It whines that scale is important for a search engine's success, and that there are significant barriers to entry to becoming a competitive player in the search engine space. But the DOJ offers nothing more than "it must be antitrust!" to hand-wave away why Google has managed to succeed better than its rivals, including rivals like Yahoo that had entered the market long before Google (and for whom barriers to entry should not have been an issue), and rivals like Microsoft (which the DOJ acknowledges is able to achieve the same scale as Google). The market has had choices—choices that even the DOJ cannot ignore, no matter how much it is desperate to because of how their existence undermines its case.

And so with the "la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you" approach to antitrust enforcement the DOJ tries to wish these inconvenient facts away, arguing that Google's size and share of the market somehow magically evinces an antitrust violation, with little more support than "because we said so."

Which is not nearly a good enough basis for this sort of extraordinary action.

Filed Under: antitrust, doj, genericide, trademark
Companies: google

FCC Too Afraid To Go On Record To Truly Support Trump's Dumb Attack On Social Media

from the not-the-courageous-type dept

We've already discussed at length how the FCC's support of Trump's dumb attack on social media and Section 230 is some of the most blistering hypocrisy we've ever seen (and we've seen a lot). This was, you'll recall, an agency that whined like a toddler for five straight years about how some fairly modest rules holding telecom monopolies accountable was somehow "government run amok," yet has now pivoted gracelessly into supporting Trump's dumb, likely unconstitutional effort to have the FCC police social media -- despite having little to no authority to actually do so.

It's been amusing to watch folks like FCC boss Ajit Pai sheepishly avoid really addressing that his colleague Mike O'Rielly was fired by Trump simply for very timidly pointing this out. It's also been amusing to watch Pai, who I guarantee knows that Trump's EO is an idiotic mess, pretend that's not the case as he pushes the NTIA request to "re-examine Section 230" through the bureaucratic grist mill just to generate some bad faith election headlines and please "dear leader."

That's supported by this recent Washington Post article that makes it clear top FCC brass knows this idea is garbage but is moving forward anyway because we wouldn't want to make the idiot king mad:

"Only a year ago, top FCC aides had told the Trump administration privately that they did not want to pursue regulation around online speech, according to four people with direct knowledge of the talks, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe confidential proceedings. The comments came as part of a series of conversations convened by the White House designed to explore potential regulation targeting Silicon Valley.

Pai himself had previously expressed opposition to new FCC regulation targeting social media sites. On Thursday, however, he set the agency on a path toward issuing new rules around Section 230, citing concerns shared by “all three branches of government” about the tech giants’ behavior."

It's also amusing to watch Pai refuse to publicly comment on Trump's dumb idea outside of a scripted press release. But then turn around and have Pai (or Carr's) office feed unattributed nonsense to the Post about how this agency isn't being ravenously hypocritical:

"The FCC declined to comment. An agency official, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, stressed there had been no contact between the White House and the commission before Pai’s announcement. The official said that Pai’s position had remained consistent over time, since the action he is eyeing on Section 230 is not the same as direct regulation of online speech."

That bit about how there had "been no contact" between the FCC and White House is very likely false, but is included because (you might recall) Pai and friends made a monumental stink about how Obama's support for net neutrality was somehow an "illegal" attempt to pressure the FCC. It wasn't, and here you have the Trump administration doing precisely what they previously whined about.

You're to apparently pretend this isn't all a bad faith dog and pony show designed to put false claims of "Conservative censorship" in the headlines during an election, bully companies that just happen to be long-time adversaries of Trump allies (telecom, Oracle, Rupert Murdoch), and thwart companies that have only recently figured out that while immensely profitable, amplifying hate speech and political disinformation isn't great for democracies or public welfare. You're also supposed to pretend Ajit Pai isn't an utterly spineless politician more eager to pander to an authoritarian nitwit than do what's right.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, ajit pai, donald trump, fcc, free speech, section 230

Federal Officers Are Still Struggling To Find Evidence Of A Massive Antifa Conspiracy

from the content-to-settle-for-lowball-arrests-of-randos-instead dept

Donald Trump's lurid myths about bad hombres crossing the border to wreak havoc in the United States have failed to be ushered into existence by CBP and ICE. Try as they might, the two agencies have done little more than process a bunch of bog-standard illegal entries. And... um... target college students here legally. Numbers were fudged, but it has proven to be an exercise in futility. This attempt to villainize immigrants has been abandoned by both Trump and these DHS components.

Trump's new favorite enemy-of-America is "antifa." The president seems to believe antifa is a hierarchical organization capable of being crippled by intelligence gathering, strategic arrests, and the occasional extrajudicial killing. He's wrong about this as well. But that's not stopping the DHS and its protest-centered task forces from doing everything they can to prove some massive anti-facist conspiracy exists. This includes flying in FBI analysts and their tech to "exploit" data taken from arrestees' phones in hopes of finding some link between ongoing protests and Big Leftist.

All the money being spent in hopes of toppling an idea and prosecuting federal crimes isn't really accomplishing either of those tasks. As the AP reports, the feds aren't having any luck massaging Trump's antifa fever dreams into coherent shape. Nor are they really finding much federal crime to prosecute.

President Donald Trump portrays the hundreds of people arrested nationwide in protests against racial injustice as violent urban left-wing radicals. But an Associated Press review of thousands of pages of court documents tell a different story.

Very few of those charged appear to be affiliated with highly organized extremist groups, and many are young suburban adults from the very neighborhoods Trump vows to protect from the violence in his reelection push to win support from the suburbs.

[...]

In thousands of pages of court documents, the only apparent mention of antifa is in a Boston case in which authorities said a FBI Gang Task Force member was investigating “suspected ANTIFA activity associated with the protests” when a man fired at him and other officers. Authorities have not claimed that the man accused of firing the shots is a member of antifa.

Some of those arrested by federal officers are more profa than antifa.

John Malcolm Bareswill, angry that a local Black church held a prayer vigil for George Floyd, called the church and threatened to burn it to the ground, using racial slurs in a phone call overheard by children, prosecutors said. Bareswill, 63, of Virginia Beach, faces 10 years in prison after pleading guilty to making a telephonic threat.

Two Missouri militia members who authorities say traveled to Kenosha, Wisconsin, to see Trump’s visit in the wake of the police shooting of Jacob Blake were arrested at a hotel in September with a cache of guns, according to court documents. An attorney for one of the men, Michael Karmo, said he is “charged criminally for conduct that many Americans would consider patriotic,” as authorities have alleged his motive was to assist overwhelmed law enforcement.

There have been more than 300 arrests since this Trump-propelled charade began, but the feds are really stretching of the term "federal crime" to keep federal prosecutors in the mix. Arson (or attempted arson) isn't normally a federal charge but that makes up about a quarter of the fed's caseload. This allows the federal government to pursue sentences far harsher than those levied by states. In one case, the government's lawyers argued the attempted torching of a cop car required federal charges because the police car was "used in interstate commerce."

There's also a lot of miscellaneous garbage being treated as federal crime. Nearly a third of the cases deal with things like disorderly conduct, impeding a federal officer, failing to obey lawful orders, and obstructing law enforcement. There are more serious tangents to these charges (assaulting an officer, rioting) but these are often handy ways to bring criminal charges against people who fail to show officers the respect they feel they're owed. And "assaulting" an officer can mean something as harmless as pulling away from one when they try to grab you.

This zealousness to find an antifa link -- and keep cases federal for maximum vindictiveness -- has resulted in tragic absurdity.

A top federal prosecutor appointed by President Donald Trump held a news conference this week to announce that the “outstanding investigative work” of federal and state law enforcement officers had resulted in a federal felony charge against a 29-year-old bassist in an anarcho-punk band over a bag of weed.

An investigation was triggered after someone reported the bassist's staged photos of him carrying a mock molotov cocktail. These were supposed to be promo shots for his band, but he released them after the George Floyd killing. Law enforcement raided Justin Coffman's home in June. All they uncovered were a couple of legal guns, the fake molotov, and 24 grams of marijuana. Coffman was interrogated by the FBI after the raid. The agent questioning didn't seem too concerned officers had found a personal use amount of pot in the home. But the agent was very interested in Coffman's political beliefs. The FBI ultimately let the locals handle it. He was originally charged only with possession.

But the feds came back, apparently intent on making this anarcho-punk an example. The government brought federal gun charges against Coffman because it's illegal to own guns when you're a drug user. Those charges didn't stick but the state's creative "hoax device" charge did. That didn't stop the president from congratulating law enforcement for managing to turn nothing into some handy "we're taking apart antifa" propaganda.

This is your tax dollars working overtime to satisfy the cravings of an uninformed president content to traffic in conspiracy theories. And it's a handy way to deter future protests against police brutality. But it does nothing to make the country safer or serve the people paying for it.

Filed Under: antifa, cbp, doj, ice, protests, william barr

Nintendo Nukes 'Zelda' Fan Game, As Per Usual

from the death-of-the-wild dept

I've tried with Nintendo. For some years now, I have both complained about how strict and hamfisted the company is when it comes to allowing fans to express their fandom in the form of fan-created games and content, as well as offered the company advice as to how it could be just a little more cool about all of this. The frustration really starts to boil over when you realize just how much cool content the world could have if Nintendo could figure out some way not to be as protectionist as possible and instead seek out ways to work with fans to allow for this sort of thing. To be clear, as I have said in the past, Nintendo certainly can act this way when it comes to how it treats its fans, but it doesn't have to act this way.

But, when you jump at every fan-made work like a toddler on meth jumps at their own shadow, I suppose you just can't help yourself. The most recent evidence that Nintendo isn't changing course comes in the form of a fan-created Zelda game put up on GitHub that Nintendo swiftly got taken down.

Well-known modder Kaze Emanuar, who has been releasing a number of unofficial Nintendo-based projects over the last few years, launched a title called 'The Missing Link' earlier this year. The game made use of the very same engine from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and aimed to bridge the gap between Ocarina, and later N64 title, Zelda: Majora's Mask.

The game was available from GitHub, but following the copyright claim, has since been removed.

To be charitable to Nintendo, there is no lawsuit thus far involved in this story. Given that the company has never been litigiously shy, perhaps that's progress of a kind. And, again, Nintendo is well within its rights to take this action. The takedown request itself at least nods at any question as to whether this game would constitute fair use.

"The copyrighted works are the video games in Nintendo’s The Legend of Zelda video game franchise, including without limitation the audio-visual works, story lines, characters, and imagery in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (U.S. Copyright Reg. No. PA0000901848), The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask (U.S. Copyright Reg. No. PA0001940271), and others.

Nintendo has reviewed the reported material and does not believe it qualifies as a fair use of Nintendo’s copyright-protected work."

All true, except that isn't where this story has to end. There are plenty of ways that Nintendo could sanctify these sorts of fan-made games and content that don't involve taking them down. It could work out some arrangement with the fans who make these fan-games to make them official, thereby alleviating any concern for copyright protection. On the copyright side specifically, the company could simply ignore these fan-games, like plenty of other game studios do. Hell, if it's some monetary corporate itch that requires scratching, Nintendo could even build a fan-creator program that allowed it to make some money and have curation abilities over these expressions of adoration turned into gaming content.

But, no. Instead, out comes to the copyright takedown request, down goes the game, and the world is an objectively slightly worse place for it.

Filed Under: fan games, trademark, zelda
Companies: nintendo