UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe

from the welcome-to-your-digital-economy-bill dept

Want to know what happens when you increase the liability of third parties for copyright infringement? Stories of shops refusing to print digital photos. We’ve seen it for a while in the US. Five years ago we had stories of photoshops in the US refusing to make prints on photos because of the assumption that they must infringe on someone’s copyrights. Wal-Mart got caught up in the story a few years back when an employee made some clueless statements about copyright in refusing to make prints of certain images — and there was a repeat story just a few months ago.

It appears that a similar story is playing itself out across the pond in the UK, where the popular retailer Boots apparently refused to print one woman’s photos because they were seen as “too good” for her to have taken, and therefore must be infringing on someone’s copyrights (thanks to Dave Michels for sending this in). The woman even got a signed letter, and when that didn’t work, came back with the (pregnant) woman who was in the photos to let the staff know that these photos were, indeed, legit and not covered by someone else’s copyright. The store still said no.

And, of course, this sort of thing only becomes as bigger and bigger issue as amateur photographers improve. Of course, it’s easy to put the blame on Boots or the employees here for being over-zealous (or, as Boots put it, “over-cautious”), but the real issue is what we’ve turned copyright law into these days, where people are taught to fear being involved in anything that might possibly infringe, as it may lead to lawsuits or a loss of an internet connection or whatever. As copyright laws get more ridiculous, we’re teaching people to not move forward if they don’t know for sure — and that can create a massive stifling of creativity and expression.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “UK Shop Refuses To Make Prints Of Digital Photos Because They're 'Too Good' And Must Infringe”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Yogi says:


The law is just teaching people that unauthorized creativity is illegal.

What is authorized creativity? Glad you asked.

Authorized creativity is all things created by or licensed or patented or trademarked in the past, present or future, by a corporation, namely the MPAA or RIAA or any corporate publisher especially those in the United States of Corporate America (formerly, the USA).

Remember, if you are not a retained slave/artist you are probably creating illegally!

Get your ACTA together, Mike!

John Doe says:

This has happened to me..

I took some photos for a charity and the lab would not print them without a release. The lady who was trying to get them printed had to call me to come to the store to sign a release. Fortunately they did print them, but it was quite a hassle for everyone involved.

What we really need are less laws.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: This has happened to me..

I took some photos for a charity and the lab would not print them without a release. The lady who was trying to get them printed had to call me to come to the store to sign a release.

Huh? If they require releases, then why didn’t they get one when you dropped the photos off to be printed in the first place? I believe I would have asked them that question. I mean, it’s not like copyright law only applies to “good” photos (although some shops seem to be trying to pretend so).

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual

It seems people subconsciously recognise that copyright is a privilege intended for publishing corporations, and yet its apologists (especially the Creative Commons crowd) persist in believing it’s a natural authorial right – that somehow protects individuals AGAINST exploitation by corporations.

Copyright is an instrument of injustice. The best thing to do with it is to abolish it, and let it serve as a salutary lesson to future generations, as slavery and its abolition has served to ours.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual

Like all privileges, it is actually also ‘bad in theory’ as well as in implementation.

We’ve had copyright for such a long time that its proponents’ use of ‘right’ as a contraction of ‘legally granted right’ has conflated and corrupted the original 18th century meaning of right as a natural right.

The following excerpt from Wikipedia’s page on Thomas Paine’s Rights of Man seems to put the difference between ‘right’ and right most succinctly:

Human rights originate in Nature, thus, rights cannot be granted via political charter, because that implies that rights are legally revocable, hence, would be privileges:

It is a perversion of terms to say that a charter gives rights. It operates by a contrary effect – that of taking rights away. Rights are inherently in all the inhabitants; but charters, by annulling those rights, in the majority, leave the right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few . . . They . . . consequently are instruments of injustice.

The fact, therefore, must be that the individuals, themselves, each, in his own personal and sovereign right, entered into a compact with each other to produce a government: and this is the only mode in which governments have a right to arise, and the only principle on which they have a right to exist.

Thus: The Statute of Anne, by annulling the (natural) right to copy (that is inherently in all the inhabitants), in the majority, leaves that right, by exclusion, in the hands of a few (copyright holders). The privilege of copyright is consequently an instrument of injustice.

See also:

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual

Human rights originate in Nature

There are no “rights” in nature. There is nothing “natural” about “natural rights” as they are still enforced by governments and would not otherwise exist (evidenced many times over in places with little to no government infrastructure). The only law in nature is the “law of the jungle” which entails a complete absence of natural rights.

Bob says:

Re: Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual

You are pretty ignorant. Copyright protection exists for a reason. And I’m sure if you had anything of value to offer the world you would want it protected as well. I’m not sure how you would feel about me taking any creations of yours from your computer and selling them to any willing buyer for my personal profit.

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Re: Copyright is not a privilege intended for the individual

I am indeed pretty ignorant*.

As you astutely observe, Copyright does exist for a reason – that it is particularly lucrative to the publishing industries and the state’s requirement that all publishing be constrained. The industry and state still conspire today (ACTA) just as they did in the 18th century (see prior to the enactment of the Statute of Anne.

If you took any of my intellectual works (or made copies thereof) from my computer without my authorisation, whether to sell or not, I’d have no hesitation in seeking your prosecution for the violation of my natural exclusive right, and all remedies regarding your theft of my work.

It’s important to distinguish between the government’s protection of an individual’s natural right, and its unethical granting of privileges such as copyright (that derogate from individuals’ rights) for the commercial benefit of corporations.

* It’s always good to start a comment with an ad hominem – it really sets the standard. Nevertheless, this one is at least an accurate allegation, if a tad pejorative.

Anonymous Coward says:

I especially love the bunch of comments from people claiming to be professional photographers who congratulate the printer for “looking out for photographers business interests”.

Are these the same british photographers who we should solidarize with when they’re being bullied by overzealous police or get punched in the face by people not liking a lens pointed at them?

Know your enemy …

Joshua says:

oh my...

This is another example treating an anecdote like a trend. If a image looks professional, the store needs either a photographer’s release or a signed statement that the person getting the images are their own work to protect themselves from copyright infringement. As amateur photography improves, print shops are going to be losing a lot of business if they try to adopt a tougher, impossible to satisfy, standard. As long as they have a signed release, then their liability is absolved and its on the person who ordered the prints. This is intended to ensure photographers get paid for their work, not some bureaucratic conspiracy to squelch creativity.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: oh my...

Erm, well done for repeating what the article said.

“the store needs either a photographer’s release or a signed statement that the person getting the images are their own work to protect themselves from copyright infringement”

is mirrored perfectly by:

“They were demanding a letter on headed paper to prove I was the photographer, but I explained to them that I was a student and did not have my own photography business.”

To protect themselves, they needed to adopt a standard that this particular photographer could not meet.

“As amateur photography improves, print shops are going to be losing a lot of business if they try to adopt a tougher, impossible to satisfy, standard.”

Indeed. Which is why the article you’re commenting on questions the need to implement such a standard. The store is only doing what is required of them by law, or at least to avoid falling foul of it.

“This is intended to ensure photographers get paid for their work, not some bureaucratic conspiracy to squelch creativity.”

Bullshit. An photography student was prevented from sharing her work. How does this *not* squelch creativity?


Re: The destructive power of CYA

This doesn’t need to be a “conspiracy” to do damage. Once this becomes a matter of corporate CYA driven by an environment of fear, it will take on a whole life of it’s own. Even if it isn’t intended to completely stifle creativity it will end up that way because of various isolated individuals trying to protect themselves.

The unjustified environment is fear is the problem.

Once again, someone else’s interests are used as an excuse to trample my rights (me personally and not just in a theoretical abstract).

Photographers interests in getting paid simply aren’t worth it, period.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: oh my...

“This is another example treating an anecdote like a trend.”

These include only reported incidents. Who knows how many unreported incidents there are. and the fact that the mainstream media ignores these very important issues either means that they’re not news (ie: they happen all the time) or there is an intentional coverup going on (ie: they happen more often than we think but big media favors copy privilege laws). Heck, even commenters here seem to have faced problems with photograph releases.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: oh my...

and you can’t expect blogs and other outlets to be able to report ever incident that this happens. If one person was refused to have their photo released due to these restrictions, it’s safe to assume that many people faced with similar circumstances would also be refused and probably have been refused. Apparently the store thinks this is enough of a liability to encourage at least one employee to refuse certain photos, they wouldn’t do this if the rule was not worth applying in any circumstance. They make these policies and hint at what employees should do to avoid liability exactly because they think that these circumstances occur frequently enough as to impose liability.

Lachlan Hunt (profile) says:

Clearly, we need safe harbours for print shops so that they are exempt from any liability. It is completely unreasonable for anyone to think that a shop clerk would ever be able to judge which photos are being printed with or without permission from the copyright holder, and the idea that professional-looking photos are more likely to be infringing is ludicrous.

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Same problem

I have had the same problem with a store (Walgreen’s) refusing to print my pictures because they were “too good.”

This raises another question, though. Who judges “too good?” In my case the pictures in question were definitely not what I would consider professional quality; at best they were somewhat better than the blue-haired lady in front of me was picking up.

Perhaps the secret is to stick in some blurry pictures or put my thumb over the lens in a few of them.

John says:

Make everyone sign a release

Sorry, whether the photo looks good or not, anyone asking for something printed should sign a release for the print shop.

The US protects any creative work the moment it is created. It does not judge what is pro and what is not. The print shop is reproducing this creative work and it should protect itself with a release.

I know this is a UK story, but it seams from reading the article there are similar liabilities there too.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Make everyone sign a release

and these laws are ridiculous. We have to impose burdensome laws that only serve to hinder creativity on EVERYONE just to protect the selfish few that want copyprivileges to last 95 years for corporation or the lifetime of the extortion artist plus 70 years for individuals. Not acceptable.

Joe Pro says:

Reminds me of College

My best friend was accused of plaigiarism once because his term paper was too good. All of that hard work, and the result was him having to explain himself to his professor. The professor, to his credit, gave my friend, the benefit of doubt.

Maybe this hullabaloo says more about us as people, and how we view excellence, than it does the law.

Michial Thompson (user link) says:

Isn't it the shops perogotive to turn away business

Noone is granted the RIGHT to do business with anyone. The shop’s only screw up was in putting a reason on why they chose not to do business with the customer. Then little mikee latches onto that and pouts and complains.

It’s the business owner’s right to turn away any business they want

Crosbie Fitch (profile) says:

Re: Isn't it the shops perogotive to turn away business

Well, there’s always the wee matter of UNFAIR discrimination.

Given copyright is inherently an instrument of injustice, to discriminate against people requiring your services on the basis of such an injustice is therefore unfair discrimination.

It may well be best to simply say “We can no longer provide copying services due to the costs of establishing the identity of, and permission by, the current copyright holders/assigns”.

Any Mouse says:

Re: Isn't it the shops perogotive to turn away business

You will note, Mr Troll, that this was a bit name chain store, not a store owner, refusing to make the prints. So once more you’re out of line and spouting out of your ass. Stick to the issues being discussed, please. If you’re able to contribute anything meaningful. Which we all doubt, anyways.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Isn't it the shops perogotive to turn away business

“Noone is granted the RIGHT to do business with anyone.'”

That’s not the point. The point is that Copy privilege laws are intimidating people not to do business with photographers for no good reason and the effect is that it only hinders innovation and detrimentally interferes with everyone’s lives for no good reason other than to serve selfish people who lobby for ridiculous copyprivilege laws.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Isn't it the shops perogotive to turn away business

“It’s the business owner’s right to turn away any business they want”

Indeed. But nobody’s disputing that. What’s being questioned is the justness of the fact that the store management felt that they had no choice other than to turn away business, lest they face legal action from a 3rd party.

See the difference?


Re: Re: Think of the shopkeepers!

Yes. The original troll is glossing over the fact that the relevant shopkeepers are also victims here.

They want to take your money. They want to profit from you. These laws are harming them as well. These laws are causing their employees to cluelessly turn away business. Since many of these stores sell other stuff, there is probably also “collateral damage” involved.

Shopkeepers are being messed with here just as much as individual shutterbugs. They’re just at the top of the hill and the customer and employee are at the bottom.

Rob says:

With technology advancing rapidly in the digital camera world, the average amateur photography can – by just using the in-built functions of the camera – make a photo look ‘professional’. Hell, even a semi-competent Photoshop user can make a blurred snap shot a Van Gogh. For stores to judge that a photo ‘is too professional’ really need to take a 30 second class in Reality 101 to get a idea of what is easily capable nowadays. It’s not the 1980s anymore.

Anonymous Coward says:

Should have gone to Jessops

This woman went to Boots. These are the people who used to take a look at your pictures and place helpful stickers on them like “this is under exposed” and “this would look good enlarged and in a frame”. Boots sell cosmetics, shampoo etc.

Try using Jessops in the future. They have much better printers and make a living selling camera equipment. They also have people who would understand your explanation of lens choice, lighting etc. and therefore recognise you as a photographer.

Call me Al says:

Re: Should have gone to Jessops

Do you work for Jessops by chance?

My experience of their shops is they generally read the back of the box to me as a way of informing me of the quality of the product.

Though they are also generally happy to give me a discount if I argue long enough so I guess I can’t really complain.

This was a cock up by Boots for sure. The photographer did everything she could just back up her claim that the photos were legitimately hers and the fact Boots still refused is ridiculous. Copyright has got everyone running scared as the legal industry sinks its claws into every single facet of our lives.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Should have gone to Jessops

Yeah, no non-specialist store can ever hire people who have any specialist knowledge – Boots clearly staff their camera department with the same people who man the perfume and baby departments. Also, every single specialist store worker is an expert in their field because they pay so well that an expert photographer would rather work retail than make a living actually doing photography.

/end sarcasm

Lyle says:

For digital photos a way to prove its yours.

In the Exif data for digital photos is the serial number of the camera that took the picture, as well as the model number etc. If you provide that data you can prove the picture was taken by your camera, hence you are the owner. For consumer cameras just showing that the picture was taken by a consumer camera should be enough, howmany pros would use a low end camera? Instead of a letter this should do.

Rekrul says:

Re: For digital photos a way to prove its yours.

In the Exif data for digital photos is the serial number of the camera that took the picture, as well as the model number etc. If you provide that data you can prove the picture was taken by your camera, hence you are the owner.

Right, because it’s not like it’s possible to alter the Exif data…

Lyle says:

Re: Re: For digital photos a way to prove its yours.

But you have shifted the proof to the store in this case, because they have to prove its not modified. Note that in many cameras you can also add the owners name to the file. If one were that sophisticated one could go to a higher level shop that would also add the release to the situation. But unless you are going into large formats which would be professional grade, a personal printer does solve the issue. If you need the large format stuff your going to a professional shop, so they may routinly require the release/ownership statement.

Kiersten says:

Re: Re:

yes, they have a right to turn away business. Typically, there should be a reason. One which is not total crap. I can even understand the 1st time they turned her away. But she brought how much evidence? Aside from the fact that it’s unfair, it’s also insulting. As a photographer myself, I don’t want to be told that my work can not possibly be that good. It’s rude, and not a judgment that they should be qualified to make. Do we all need to major in photography and work for a professional company now? Isn’t it still a hobby?
Point being, once – fine. But she brought proof. She brought signed letters. She had one of her subjects GO TO THE STORE WITH HER. That’s just customer service stupidity.

Scott@DreamlandVisions (profile) says:


Whereas I agree that this store, and others going all the way back to the Kodak kiosks of the 70s, overreacted out of possible fear, I think we’re missing one important aspect to creative freedoms.

When I started having problems with the local shop I had been taking my images to for prints, I went out and bought a printer. Now I can print any image from any source that I want. I have complete creative freedom.

The real story here is not a stifling of creative freedom, or freedom of speech, but one of a culture of fear created by the gross misinformation being presented by the various govt and corporate propaganda campaigns.

Copyright issues have become extremely complex. Legal liability issues surrounding copyright has become even more complex.

Without the legal and financial resources to establish, then defend, a policy that can work through those complexities, businesses will almost always enact a policy that is simple and effective for what they perceive as their majority customer base.

Free markets are wonderful things, though. If you run into a company that has a brain-dead policy such as the one in this article, walk across the street and spend your money at one that doesn’t.

If you can’t find one locally, there are online alternatives. And ulitmately, you can put your resources into acquiring the means to achieve your creative goals without any outside interference or relying on the whims of others.


Rekrul says:

Re: stifling?

When I started having problems with the local shop I had been taking my images to for prints, I went out and bought a printer. Now I can print any image from any source that I want. I have complete creative freedom.

What’s the largest size print you can make, and how does the cost for ink cartridges/toner compare to the cost of having them printed at a shop?

Scott@DreamlandVisions (profile) says:

Re: Re: stifling?

My max print size is 13″ by 19″. Print costs for a 4×6 is comparable to what local shops charge and it’s cheaper for me to print 8×12 or larger than it is to go to anyone in town.

There are some online sites that will print cheaper than I can, but by the time you count shipping costs and time as well as an inability to fine tune the print, it’s just not worth it.

I’ve sold my prints through art galleries and headlines a couple of shows with them.

My point is, however, that the only way to have complete creative freedom is to not have to rely on other people to act as gate keepers for any portion of your creation.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: stifling?

I know for me, it’s far more economical to print out my photos using drugstore photo kiosks. I don’t have reason to print out photos very often, and my HP printer (generic ink) drinks color ink like it’s beer. A single black-and-white cartridge will last for months, but a color cartridge will drain after only one or two photos. This has always been my experience with HPs, and I’ve owned them most of my life. I think Walgreen’s charges .19 cents for every 4×6 photo, and the finished product looks like the best Kodak film. No printer I’ve ever owned comes even close to matching the quality of the drugstore kiosk.

Anonymous Coward says:

Issues like this one will only lead to people using back alley print shops after hours, and all. Black market print shops…

Might even force folks to print their own pictures. Something we just must not accept.

Until we just realize we are under the iron grip of a corporate world gone insane, people will continue to act with free will and thought. Just work and pay. That’s all we SHOULD do.

Michael Mauro (user link) says:

Refusal to print photos

The copyright subject is indeed a complex one. I am fortunate enough to now have my own printers, allowing me to produce prints myself and avoid such hassles but it also allows me to control the quality of my prints which is a definite plus. Maybe this is too simplistic but . . . if only people were honest, maybe we wouldn’t have this issue.

I appreciate the heads-up this story gives, raising awareness of what photographers encounter wherever we are, prepares us all.

Anonymous Coward says:


Why don’t they just have everyone that brings anything in to be printed just ahead and sign an affidavit stating that they have the legal right to have prints made? I shouldn’t be based on “how good” the photos look. If the customer lies on the affidavit then the copyright holder can go after the customer instead of the shop.

Anonymous Coward says:

I print my own photos at the self-service kiosks and before I start, I ask for a cardboard photo envelope. That way, when it’s time to pay at the counter, the clerk just has to look at the computerized receipt to tell me how much to pay. She doesn’t have/need to look inside to examine my property. I wasn’t doing anything illegal, but I don’t think it’s anyone else’s damned business what I’m printing.

db walton (user link) says:

Walmart release

I went to pick up some 4x6s at Walmart, and they did not want to give me the prints until I signed a copyright release. The release read in such a way that it said that I would authorize Walmart to reproduce the pictures. No limits as to the waiver. I refused. They still allowed me to pickup my purchase, but I made it very clear they were confusing people copying other people’s work vs. people making prints of their own work.

Dave says:


“A spokesman said: ‘We have a legal obligation to ensure that we do not infringe any copyright laws including those of professional photographers”.
Is this a fact? “LEGAL” is the word. Surely they cannot be held responsible for the actions of their customers, ESPECIALLY after both the sitter and photographer have signed to say that the pics are legit. Does that not then put the onus on them and absolves Boots? Makes no sense to me.

Kiersten says:

This is insane!
I personally am a photographer, and can’t stand when people say things like “you couldn’t have taken that picture…it’s too professional looking” or something along those lines.
What is it now? If we don’t have some sort of license or professional career in photography, our skills can’t possibly be above amateur?

amber says:


i for one have had the same problem, they always ask me for a release form from the photographer, and i have to tell them, i already signed one, and i am the photographer, so print MY pictures literally.. but i think its a compiment to me and my photo taking abilities. and good to know that if anyone had my photos, they would uestion them getting them printed. my only problem is.. how do i protect my photos from being printed by someone else? senoir pics, they hand them out to their friends and family.. and if someone wanted to make a copy of that photo, say, larger print or something, how do i keep them from doing so without my knowledge or permission?

amber says:


sorry, more to that. i take pictures of my kid. and my nieces as they turn seniors. also of friends weddings. yes its a hassle when the store has to call before printing. again, its a compliment. but. how can they tell if i took them, or another photographer. all they asked me when i filled out the paperwork was “r u the photographer?” of course my answer was yes, or i wouldnt be filling this out. sooo… if someone else wanted to print my photos, they would only have to say “yes i took them” so again, another question … whats the point in the paperwork i filled out? they still call me and ask for a release form. grr.. im not all that sure im for the copyright…. none f it makes sense.. im thinking more like.. we should get rid it.

iveseenitall says:

Lesson learned here should be take your business elsewhere.
The original intention was not to make those who enjoy content in ever changing ways guilty of a crime. It was not conceived as a vehicle to enrich artists at the expense of users.
Copyright was initially supposed insure the interests of both the rights holder and society. Insuring that after a set period of time, copyrighted works would eventually fall into the public domain. The trade off being that during a set period of time certain rights would be reserved for the holder of the copyright.
In other words a two way street.
Obviously there are those who wish to twist the issue to one extreme or the other. Doesnt mean the rest of us have to buy into the us versus them bs.
Evolution yes. Respect yes. Institutions no. Artists yes.

Koushik says:

Here is a similar situation from walgreens - US just yesterday

Most frustrating and funniest incident : walgreens refused to print some of my pictures

Reason :- These pictures look like professional – due to copy right reason I need to prove them – its clicked by me.

Here comes the funny reasoning part:

I asked what prove you are looking for- duty manager says, when you click them, you need to come to the shop with camera and show them in the camera itself.
After giving him my background, reason of printing these pictures, having associated with so and so club including PSA (Photographic society of America) – blah blah blah… including pointing the printer, who already printed my other pictures earlier.

Then he showed me one of my picture in the screen (ia picture of a bird) – and ask me – ” OK sir, can tell me where did you take this picture…”
Do I have to really tell the address of the bird and the location of the tree along with day and time.

Based on his way of proof – I asked, what if, I want to print a picture which has been clicked 6 month back – because definitely I will keep all my pictures in memory card for so long, He does not have any answer, just said sorry sir, we cannot print.

“How you identify that its professional pictures ..”, he says just by guess

I asked if they have any pre-printed copy right T&C – I am happy to sign also – they said, we dont have any. by now, I am already surrounded by 3 other walgreens associates and few customer as well…

Me- already frustrated by now, asked him to write in a paper whatever he is saying to me – he says, he cannot.

My next question to him totally pissed him off – I charged him, saying what is the guarantee that you would not print my pictures ( its already in their system) and sell them in your name…

He says – enough sir, here is the business card of the store manager, he will be here in the store, please talk to him. I asked what time he will be in the store tomorrow morning – answer is ” around 8 , 9, sometimes around 10…..”

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...