It's always a weird look for companies and IP owners to go after clear expressions of fandom from their customers. And, yet, this sort of thing is done often, with fan get-togethers or festivals regularly being threatened by the IP owners they're fans of. Often times we hear the usual nonsense trademark law excuse that fans must be served with cease and desist letters, or sued, or else the trademark owner will lose its rights. That, as we've discussed repeatedly, is not true, as there are other options available to the trademark holder besides threatening fans.

Warner Bros. has many of the rights to the Harry Potter franchise and the company has not been shy in the past about firing off threat letters to fan groups and festivals. Previously, Warner Bros. has claimed that it only abused fans in this way if there was a commercial aspect to the events. Even under that policy, the legal team for the studio was, shall we say, imperfect. But Warner Bros. has apparently had something of a policy shift that is causing it to go after far more of these fan events, causing Potter fans everywhere frustration and anger.

"It's almost as if Warner Bros. has been taken over by Voldemort, trying to use dark magic to destroy the light of a little town," said Sarah Jo Tucker, a 21-year-old junior at Chestnut Hill College, which hosts a Quidditch tournament that coincides with the annual suburban Philadelphia festival.

Philip Dawson, Chestnut Hill's business district director, said Warner Bros. reached out to his group in May, letting them know new guidelines prohibit festivals' use of any names, places or objects from the series. That ruled out everything from meet-and-greet with Dumbledore and Harry to Defense Against the Dark Arts classes.

"It was very quickly apparent (we) weren't going to be able to hold festivals like years past," he said. The late October festival drew about 45,000 fans last year to the historic neighborhood's cobblestone streets. This year, they will instead have a "wands and wizards" family night and pub crawl and other magic-themed events — and people can still dress as their favorite characters.

As the AP notes, this policy shift is causing these notices to go out to festivals all over the country, each time stating that new policies prohibit this sort of fan-fun at local festivals. As is often the case, Warner Bros. is claiming that trademark law requires it to take these exact actions. Again, this is not true. The studio has many other options, including offering a cheap license to the festivals to allow the fun to go on while having them be officially sanctioned. That it chose not to pursue that course means that Warner Bros. is squarely more interested in being a legal bully than it is in allowing fans of its franchise to celebrate their fandom.

It's an especially stupid track to take, given that these organic fan festivals are certainly in some part responsible for propelling the Potter franchise to the stardom it has now achieved.

Philadelphia Potter fan Sarah McIntyre thinks it's ridiculous for Warner Bros. to target the festivals.

"They are acting like the Dursleys," said the 34-year-old yoga teacher and bookkeeper. She said they should be encouraging communities to bring Harry Potter to life. "Creating interest in the franchise would increase revenue," she said.

How this is not obvious to the folks at Warner Bros. is beyond me. The studio ought to want people talking about the franchise as widely as possible and it's hard to see how fan events at local festivals would do anything other than cause new potential consumers of the franchise to generate some interest in it. As the AP takes pains to note, Warner Bros. is certainly within its rights here, or is at least likely so. But that doesn't make this is a smart business decision, never mind the most optimal outcome for its franchise. Instead, it comes off as purely unfriendly to fans, which is just not a good look for an entertainment product.

Americans tend to be oddly gullible when it comes to megamerger promises. Especially over in the telecom sector. Time after time we're told that the latest major deal will provide all manner of amazing synergies, jobs and added competition. And time after time we subsequently realize that the only people that usually benefit from these deals are investors and executives. Shortly after that, we realize that the slow consolidation and steady erosion in competition results in higher rates and even worse service, something AT&T, Comcast and Charter customers are intimately familiar with after decades of M&A mania.

And yet it's a historical lesson we refuse to learn much of anything from.

The latest megadeal du jour in the telecom space is Sprint and T-Mobile's latest attempt at a $23 billion super-union. The two companies filed their formal sales pitch with the FCC this week, and you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who thinks agency head Ajit Pai and friends won't rubber stamp the deal. The sales pitch is filled with all the usual promises, including the insistence that reducing the overall number of players in the wireless market from four to three will somehow, magically, improve wireless sector competition, a claim I've seen an awful lot of consumers actually buying into:

"New T-Mobile will have the scale and resources to take the Un-carrier movement to the next level and into new market segments. The combined company will have lower costs and the incentives to engage in aggressive pricing to expand its 4G LTE customer base as the industry continues its major transformation towards 5G. To date, T-Mobile and Sprint, individually, have not been able to materially erode Verizon and AT&T’s wireless market share or overcome their scale advantages. New T-Mobile, however, will be able to go toe-to-toe with the two larger rivals to the benefit of competition and consumers.

So the core justification for this deal is that the combined company will more easily be able to compete with AT&T and Verizon, reducing prices for everybody. But that's not how it works, especially in telecom. What really happens is when you reduce the overall number of competitors the incentive to engage in real price competition proportionally declines, resulting in less incentive to actually compete (go ask a Canadian wireless user). This reality is a major reason why both AT&T and Verizon have yet to oppose the deal. They still dominate cell tower backhaul and know this likely means less price competition at retail.

It's also why past regulators have moved to block this very deal and others like it (like AT&T's attempted acquisition of T-Mobile). And you'd be hard pressed to find a single major merger in telecom (be it by Comcast, Charter, AT&T, or CenturyLink) that hasn't made the already marginally-competitive sector worse. This mindless obsession with M&As is a major reason that this sector sees some of the worst customer satisfaction scores of any industry or agency in America (even the IRS). These companies spend so much time growing for growth's sake to please Wall Street, scaling up customer service always lags behind.

Sprint and T-Mobile are also trying to insist that the megadeal will somehow be a huge boon for job creation, another favorite claim of those lost in the throes of M&A mania:

"...the merger will create jobs on New T-Mobile’s first day and going forward. New T-Mobile will hire employees to build the new network; extend the Un-carrier customer care model to a wider subscriber base; and support customers in growing segments like in-home broadband, enterprise, and IoT. New T-Mobile’s increased investment and rapid growth—and resultant accelerated roll-out of 5G services—also will stimulate thousands of additional jobs throughout the U.S. economy.

Here too Sprint and T-Mobile ignore history and factual analysis. Megadeals almost always result in job loss, especially in telecom where countless support, retail, network operations and middle managers will quickly be found to be redundant. The claim also runs in stark contrast to predictions from Wall Street analysts, who believe the deal is likely to eliminate anywhere between 10,000 and 30,000 jobs:

"Merging the companies, said a report by Jonathan Chaplin of New Street Research, could eliminate “approximately 30,000 American jobs” — which is more than Sprint employs.

"We conservatively estimate that a total of 3,000 of Sprint and T-Mobile’s branded stores (or branded-equivalent stores) would eventually close,” (Wall Street analyst Craig Moffett said.

Each of those, he said, would mean the loss of five full time jobs, or 15,000 jobs in total. A merger also would threaten “overhead” jobs, the kind concentrated in headquarters such as Sprint’s and T-Mobile’s in the Seattle area.

And while some like to claim that Sprint will immediately collapse without such a deal (a stretch given it's owned by deep-pocketed Japanese giant SoftBank), there's a myriad of alternative options that would actually increase competition in the space. Comcast and Charter have shown repeated interest in jumping into the wireless space, and a Sprint partnership could prove to be a shortcut. Dish Networks has also routinely proclaimed interest in using its growing spectrum holdings to jump into wireless. Meanwhile, what's the point of "saving" Sprint if the end result is collectively bad for competitors and consumers alike?

It's not entirely clear why America loves to play Charlie Brown and Lucy style football when it comes to megamerger promises. Time and time again we're promised the world, and time and time again we give companies the benefit of the doubt as they promise an ocean of synergies, jobs and competition that never actually materialize. By every indication the millennials that have bought into T-Mobile's consumer friendly (except for opposing that whole net neutrality thing) branding schtick are about to learn their first real lesson on this front the hard way.

As we've been writing over the past few weeks, the EU Parliament's Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) voted earlier today on the EU's new Copyright Directive. Within that directive were two absolutely horrible ideas that are dangerous to an open internet -- a link tax and a mandatory copyright filtering requrement (i.e., the "censorship machines" proposal). While there was a big fight about it, and we heard that some in the EU Parliament were getting nervous about it, this morning they still voted in favor of both proposals and to move the entire Copyright Directive forward. The vote was close, but still went the wrong way:

Somewhat incredibly, no official rollcall tally was kept. MEP Julia Reda, however, has posted an unofficial roll call of who voted against internet freedom, showing (graphically) whether they voted for the link tax and/or censorship machines:

In case you can't see that here's who voted according to Reda's list -- most voted for both of the bad proposals, but for the few who didn't vote for the link tax, I've noted that separately. These politicians deserve to (1) be called out for trying to destroy an open internet and give in to legacy industries who want to censor the internet and (2) voted out of office next election:

• Axel Voss, Germany (who was in charge of this entire thing and who has regularly played dumb whenever people point out just how bad these proposals are. He appears completely beholden to legacy industry interests). Voss's name should become synonymous with the destruction of a free and open internet.
• Pavel Svoboda, Czech Republic (voted for censorship machines, but not the link tax)
• Rosa Estaras Ferragut, Spain
• Tadeusz Zwiefka, Poland,
• Jozsef Szajer, Hungary
• Francis Zammit Dimech, Malta
• Luis de Grandes Pascual, Spain
• Enrico Gasbarra, Italy
• Mary Honeyball, UK
• Jean-Marie Cavada, France
• Marinho e Pinto, Portugal
• Sajjad Karim, UK (voted for censorship machines, but not the link tax)
• Joelle Bergeron, France
• Marie-Christine Boutonnet, France
• Gilles Libreton, France

Note those last two votes from France, as Lebreton and Boutonnet are both members of the French National Front party, the same party whose leader, Marine Le Pen, has been out and about screaming about how unfair it is that the party's YouTube channel was deleted by automatic copyright filters -- the same filters that her own party just voted to make mandatory for all platforms. Incredible.

This is a hugely unfortunate series of events. Having the proposal approved by the JURI Committee makes it much, much harder to stop this Directive from becoming official. But it is not the end of the road. Reda will be forcing a vote from the entire EU Parliament on the issue:

This is an unacceptable outcome that I will challenge in the next plenary session, asking all 750 MEPs to vote on whether to accept the Committee’s result or open it up for debate in that larger forum, which would then give us a final chance to make changes.

This vote will likely happen on July 4. Let’s make this the independence day of the internet, the day we #SaveYourInternet from censorship machines and a link tax. Are you in?

The digital freedom group EDRi has also detailed the next steps in this process and created an infographic showing what still needs to happen:

It will be difficult to stop this freight train after this morning's vote, but not impossible. If you want to see the internet remain viable as a communications platform, rather than seeing it locked down as the new broadcast television, in which giant American companies have the final say in what you're allowed to say online, you should probably let the EU Parliament know sooner, rather than later.

The Ultimate Backend Developer Bundle contains 14 courses covering all aspects of backend code. Learn how to build SQL databases, how to code in JavaScript, how to program in Python, and much more. This bundle is on sale for $49.

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.

I've mentioned the idea of the broken windows fallacy -- not to be confused with the long debunked broken windows theory of policing -- twice in the past in reference to net neutrality, including in my recent post about what Ajit Pai should have said about repealing net neutrality. But both times I talked about it, it was kind of buried in much longer articles, and the more I think about it, the more important I think it is in understanding why Pai and his supporters are so far off in their thinking and understanding on net neutrality. What I find most perplexing about this is that people who often position themselves as doing away with overly burdensome regulations -- which is a stance that Pai has staked out pretty clearly -- are usually the kind of folks who talk frequently about the broken windows fallacy. And yet, here, those same folks seem to be missing it.

As background, the broken windows fallacy comes from Frederic Bastiat, the French economist often associated with free market and libertarian thought, and it's his clever and highly evocative way of explaining why destructive behavior -- while it may generate economic activity, is not good for the economy, because it misses all of the other (often hidden) costs, including the opportunity cost of investing that money in more productive activity. Bastiat's version went as follows:

Have you ever witnessed the anger of the good shopkeeper, James Goodfellow, when his careless son has happened to break a pane of glass? If you have been present at such a scene, you will most assuredly bear witness to the fact that every one of the spectators, were there even thirty of them, by common consent apparently, offered the unfortunate owner this invariable consolation – "It is an ill wind that blows nobody good. Everybody must live, and what would become of the glaziers if panes of glass were never broken?"

Now, this form of condolence contains an entire theory, which it will be well to show up in this simple case, seeing that it is precisely the same as that which, unhappily, regulates the greater part of our economical institutions.

Suppose it cost six francs to repair the damage, and you say that the accident brings six francs to the glazier's trade – that it encourages that trade to the amount of six francs – I grant it; I have not a word to say against it; you reason justly. The glazier comes, performs his task, receives his six francs, rubs his hands, and, in his heart, blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen.

But if, on the other hand, you come to the conclusion, as is too often the case, that it is a good thing to break windows, that it causes money to circulate, and that the encouragement of industry in general will be the result of it, you will oblige me to call out, "Stop there! Your theory is confined to that which is seen; it takes no account of that which is not seen."

It is not seen that as our shopkeeper has spent six francs upon one thing, he cannot spend them upon another. It is not seen that if he had not had a window to replace, he would, perhaps, have replaced his old shoes, or added another book to his library. In short, he would have employed his six francs in some way, which this accident has prevented

Let us take a view of industry in general, as affected by this circumstance. The window being broken, the glazier's trade is encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is seen. If the window had not been broken, the shoemaker's trade (or some other) would have been encouraged to the amount of six francs; this is that which is not seen.

And if that which is not seen is taken into consideration, because it is a negative fact, as well as that which is seen, because it is a positive fact, it will be understood that neither industry in general, nor the sum total of national labour, is affected, whether windows are broken or not.

Now let us consider James B. himself. In the former supposition, that of the window being broken, he spends six francs, and has neither more nor less than he had before, the enjoyment of a window.

In the second, where we suppose the window not to have been broken, he would have spent six francs on shoes, and would have had at the same time the enjoyment of a pair of shoes and of a window.

Now, as James B. forms a part of society, we must come to the conclusion, that, taking it altogether, and making an estimate of its enjoyments and its labours, it has lost the value of the broken window.

When we arrive at this unexpected conclusion: "Society loses the value of things which are uselessly destroyed;" and we must assent to a maxim which will make the hair of protectionists stand on end — To break, to spoil, to waste, is not to encourage national labour; or, more briefly, "destruction is not profit."

In short, breaking windows may generate economic activity for the glazier, but that doesn't count the economic cost to whoever had his window broken, or the opportunity costs of how the money spent on fixing the window could have been fixed.

So how does this apply to net neutrality? Well, Ajit Pai and nearly all of the rather vocal supporters of taking away net neutrality rules continually go back to the claim that the rules harmed broadband infrastructure investment. We'll leave aside the (rather important point) that this claim is not even remotely close to true -- but even assuming it is, it's still a broken windows fallacy.

That's because broadband infrastructure investment is not the entire market, and focusing just on that is the same as just focusing on the economic activity for the glazier created by a broken window. To take this to the extreme case: if we want to stimulate broadband infrastructure investment, just rip up the current internet -- and then we'd need to spend a ton on rebuilding the internet. Yes, that would be the best way to "stimulate" a massive internet infrastructure investment, but the costs to everyone else would be dire.

In the same way, when the FCC focuses just on broadband infrastructure, it is ignoring the costs on everyone else who use the internet. Or, as per Bastiat's story, the FCC is ignoring the costs to the guy whose window is broken as well as all of the opportunity costs from the money he spends on the glazier that doesn't go towards more productive pursuits.

In the net neutrality world, those costs are massive. It is the costs of nearly all internet platforms and services, which now have massive levels of uncertainty about whether or not ISPs will end up abusing their power to limit access (or, more likely, charge for preferred access). It includes the uncertainty of the big broadband companies favoring their own content and service partners to effectively shut out independent services. It includes the costs to the public who have less choice and fewer services that they can use, and who are more locked in to a dwindling number of giant broadband companies.

In short, Ajit Pai's FCC has fallen completely for the broken windows fallacy, by focusing just on one narrow area of economic activity, without even being willing to acknowledge that it will negatively impact a much wider swath of the economy. This is especially disappointing to see, considering that Pai and his supporters keep claiming that they are the ones to "bring economics back" to the FCC, and they are the ones who argued that the Tom Wheeler FCC ignored economics. Yet, when you look at the details, it's Pai and his supporters who seem to be the ones sticking their heads in the sand here and, as Bastiat noted, confining their theory to "that which it seen" and taking "no account of that which is not seen."

In economics this is a pretty 101-level mistake. That the FCC is making it in dismantling a key concept that makes the internet function competitively is particularly disappointing.

When the Facebook, Cambridge Analytica scandal broke, we noted that however bad you thought that scandal was (and it certainly was bad), it couldn't hold a candle to the routine privacy abuses that have occurred in the telecom sector for the better part of the last few decades. From charging consumers hundreds of additional dollars annually to opt out of snoopvertising, to the use of private user financial data to justify providing even worse customer service, the broadband industry has long been the poster child for privacy abuses without much in the way of practical public penalty.

It's just as bad on the wireless side, where carriers like Verizon have routinely have been caught modifying user data packets to track users around the internet (without telling them or providing opt out tools), and selling user browsing, app-usage and location data to everyone that comes calling. That's before you even touch on the fact that these companies are practically bone grafted to the NSA and other intelligence services.

As such, we noted how if you were part of the #DeleteFacebook set but were still rolling around using a stock phone on an incumbent carrier network, you failed to understand that Facebook's casual treatment of private consumer data was the cross-industry norm, not some errant exception.

The Location Smart and Securus scandals (which exposed the data of 200 million cell users) quickly proved our point. Thanks to lax handling of private location data by cellular carriers and third-party brokers, those scandals quickly highlighted how anonymized data isn't really anonymous, and this data can and is routinely abused by everybody in this chain of dysfunction (including law enforcement). Oddly, even in the wake of those reports, people still seemed to view the Cambridge, Facebook fracas as somehow far more scandalous, most likely because of that particular story's political undertones.

Clearly hoping to get ahead of the scandal before the press, public and regulators realized the depths of this particular rabbit hole, Verizon proclaimed that the company would be ending all sales of location data to third party data brokers. The company announced the decision (pdf) in a letter responding to inquiries by Senator Ron Wyden, who had begun to apply some pressure on mobile carriers. From the letter:

"We conducted a comprehensive review of our location aggregator program. As a result of this review, we are initiating a process to terminate our existing agreements for the location aggregator program. We will not enter into new location aggregation arrangements unless and until we are comfortable that we can adequately protect our customers’ location data through technological advancements and/or other practices."

Verizon announced it would be suspending all data sales to location data brokers like LocationSmart and Zumigo, which the company acknowledged sold that data in turn to a roster of more than 75 different companies. And, in short, it's promising to suspend such data sales at least until it can ensure that data is actually secure (what an incredibly novel idea). Who'll actually confirm this data is secure before the program is restarted isn't clear; you'll apparently just have to trust a company with a several-decades history of severe privacy violations and blatant false statements.

Like the Facebook scandal, there wasn't much in place to really ensure that often real-time data remained protected, something made clear when the LocationSmart scandal revealed that one Missouri Sheriff routinely (ab)used the system to spy on Judges and fellow law enforcement officers without much legitimate justification (or pesky warrants). In subsequent statements to the press, Verizon has tried to argue that the company quickly took steps to thwart the abuse:

"When these issues were brought to our attention, we took immediate steps to stop it. Customer privacy and security remain a top priority for our customers and our company. We stand-by that commitment to our customers."

But again, this was Verizon only acting after the horses escaped from the barn, suggesting that no, privacy and security was not a top priority. If Verizon's self-auditing was so stellar, it seems curious it never self-identified the potential for the kind of abuse the LocationSmart and Securus scandals revealed. Or the self-audits did reveal problems, but the money made from selling this data made actually fixing them a low priority. Knowing Verizon pretty well, it seems clear it wouldn't be taking this kind of financial hit if its lawyers didn't realize the company was potentially facing some pretty steep penalties here.

One of the key problems in location and other data sharing is that wireless cell carriers have found a way to effectively operate outside any meaningful privacy guidelines by perpetually passing the onus for user consent down a long line of location data aggregators. Blake Reid, an associate clinical professor at the University of Colorado School of Law, perfectly captures the problem in comments made to Brian Krebs:

"The carriers basically have arrangements with these location aggregators that contractually say, ‘You agree not to use this access we provide you without getting customer consent’,” Reid said. “Then that aggregator has a relationship with another aggregator, and so on. So what we then have is this long chain of trust where no one has ever consented to the provision of the location information, and yet it ends up getting disclosed anyhow."

Verizon's obviously trying to pre-empt privacy regulation before we collectively realize current oversight makes the wild west seem downright domesticated. The company has long fought tooth and nail against any kind of consumer privacy protections, stating back in 2008 that federal privacy rules aren't necessary because "public shame" would keep the company honest. More recently, Verizon successfully lobbied the FCC to kill modest broadband privacy rules that would have prevented precisely this kind of scandal from happening by requiring greater transparency -- and that users opt-in to more sensitive data sharing.

None of that is to say that regulatory action is the only solution here, or that this particular Congress could even accomplish such a task. But it's also pretty clear that sooner or later, the pinky swears and winks currently passing for oversight of the telecom sector's treatment of your private data aren't going to quite cut it.

Shortly after Verizon's announcement AT&T stated that it too had suspended location data sales to third-party brokers (for all the same reasons). Sprint followed suit. T-Mobile, which cultivates a reputation as a more consumer-friendly wireless carrier, belatedly brought up the rear, initially likely wary of highlighting any missteps as it seeks regulatory approval for its looming competition eroding megamerger. But again, most of these promises were somewhat murky in scope (T-Mobile's promise to improve, for example, was entirely devoid of substance and somehow never reached Wyden's office).

With this data having bounced around so many partners with so little transparency or oversight, you can be pretty sure we haven't heard the end of this story. And while wireless carriers would very much like the public and press to believe that they've fixed the privacy problems that plague the telecom sector, several decades of evidence to the contrary -- and the press and public's general tone deafness to the scope of this particular problem -- suggest any meaningful reckoning is still likely some time away.

More than half the states in the nation now pursuing individual net neutrality rules, either in the form of executive orders (banning state contracts with net-neutrality violating ISPs) or new state laws. And while ISPs have been whining about the unfairness of having to adhere to independent requirements in each state, that's probably something their lobbyists should have thought more deeply about when they worked to kill what, despite all the prattle about heavy-handed regulation, were probably some of the more modest net neutrality rules worldwide.

ISPs first tried to stop states from protecting consumers by lobbying the FCC to include language in its "Restoring Internet Freedom" repeal attempting to ban states from doing so. But in the process of gutting their authority over ISPs Ajit Pai's FCC may have also, amusingly, completely neutered its ability to tell states what to do.

As such, ISP lobbyists have been forced to run, state to state, trying to convince state lawmakers that giving consumers, small businesses and internet competition a giant middle finger is the smart political play here with midterms looming. Verizon, AT&T and Comcast are working extra hard to weaken a bill in California, that is actually a bit tougher than the FCC rules it's intended to replace. As the EFF notes, ISPs are particularly worried that California will ban "zero rating," or the practice of using usage caps and overage fees anti-competitively:

"California’s legislature has so far opted to ban discriminatory users of zero rating and prevent the major wireless players from picking winners and losers online. But new and increased resistance by the ISP lobby (led by AT&T and their representative organization CALinnovates) unfortunately has legislators contemplating whether discriminatory zero rating practices should remain lawful despite their harms for low-income Internet users. In fact, AT&T and their representatives are even going so far as to argue that their discriminatory self-dealing practices that violate net neutrality are actually good for low income Internet users.

AT&T (and even Facebook) have been pushing this idea that zero rating "helps poor people" for a while. Basically, they're trying to argue that because some users get content that doesn't count against the cap, they're somehow providing added value to low-income Americans. Of course that ignores the fact that it's only an incumbent ISP's own content (or content from the biggest, wealthiest partners) that's usually exempt, raising all kinds of anti-competitive questions.

You'd also have to ignore than American consumers pay more money for LTE mobile data than a laundry list of developed nations, and that usage caps and overage fees on these lines are arbitrary, unnecessary and meaningless constructs in the first place. Still, AT&T has spent a few years now trying to falsely conflate arbitrary caps and penalties with things like "1-800" numbers or "free shipping," successfully convincing many consumers they're getting something for free.

You'll recall that initially, the FCC didn't want to act on usage caps, overage fees and zero rating for fear of being accused of stifling carrier innovation and creativity. As a result, the 2015 rules were crafted with pretty ambiguous guidance on zero rating, something we warned would be a problem. Only at the tail end of its tenure did the Wheeler FCC start to realize caps and overage fees were being used anti-competitively to favor an ISPs' content over smaller competitors, at which point Donald Trump and Ajit Pai had already come to power--and quickly set to purging the rules entirely. You know, for freedom.

California's net neutrality law doesn't ban zero rating if an ISP wants to exempt an entire class of content (say, video) from usage caps and overage fees. But it does prohibit ISPs from striking deals that give specific companies cap-exempt status, preventing companies from buying an unfair advantage for themselves or a competitor. Given AT&T just gobbled up Time Warner and HBO with zero rating specifically in mind (HBO is free on our network but costs money if you use a competitor), you can understand why AT&T's so opposed to these rules.

This all comes to a head this Wednesday with a vote and hearing before the California Assembly’s Communications and Conveyance Committee. And while the majority of that committee say they support net neutrality, net neutrality activists say that major ISP lobbyists have succeeded in getting some lawmakers (like Committee head Miguel Santiago) to waffle on the whole zero rating part of the equation. After all, nothing quite says "restoring freedom" like letting AT&T give its own horse a half-mile lead in the streaming video wars to come.

Some of us believe that all the different nations of the world are filled with people that are mostly the same, that share the same values, and the same troubles. If only we could find some unifying issue or force that could fully bring us together, then we could finally live in a kind of Lennon-esque harmony with one another. I submit to you that perhaps stupid trademark stories revolving around "Taco Tuesdays" could well be that thing. In America, for instance, a chain called Taco John's has spent the past few years waving around the trademark the USPTO stupidly gave it on the both generic and descriptive term "Taco Tuesdays", insisting that every other business that uses it stop immediately. How this mark was ever granted, given that it describes a good offered on the day it is offered -- tacos on a tuesday -- is a question that has kept me up many a night. Despite the trouble Taco John's has caused with this, the trademark remains registered and in place.

And now it appears that Australia has its own version of this, featuring another company waving around another trademark for "Taco Tuesdays" that never should have been granted.

A stone’s throw into the city’s wild west sits Footscray’s Reverence Hotel, famed for its live music and cheap Tuesday tacos. After six years of dishing up the spicy fare, the landmark corner hotel is suddenly feeling the heat over a claim that it is infringing a trademark held by Mexican food chain Salsas Fresh Mex, which has outlets dotted across Melbourne including a site at Highpoint shopping centre. A letter from Salsas Holdings marketing manager Rebecca Woods to The Reverence Hotel demanded it stop using the phrase ”Taco Tuesday” on its website and social media accounts.

“We assume that you are unaware that Salsas is the owner of the registered trade mark TACO TUESDAY in respect to the provision of Mexican-style food and restaurant services,” it states. “The Mexican-style food offered by Salsas under that trademark has become extremely well and favourably known among members of the public in Australia, and as a result is associated with Salsas.”

I'm going to keep hammering on this until someone listens, because this trademark is not valid. Period. Paragraph. Full stop. It does not identify a source. The phrase itself is generic and common in both the restaurant industry the world over and even in homes around the world. Tuesday is for tacos and nothing about the phrase has anything to do with any individual person or business.

The folks at Footscray's had this same reaction in the most punk venue way possible.

Publican Matt Bodiam said his first reaction on opening the letter on Wednesday was amusement, but he soon realised the potential seriousness.

“I had a bit of a giggle, then [thought] I better look into it,” he said. “I can’t believe someone can trademark ‘Taco Tuesday’; it would be like trademarking ‘Happy Hour’ or ‘Tight-Arse Tuesday’, although perhaps someone has trademarked those as well.”

Actually, the "happy hour" reference is only half right. In that phrase, we have an example of the generic language tons of businesses use. Taco Tuesdays is the same in that respect, except it's also descriptive. This isn't the protection of the consuming public, the very point of trademark law, but rather the locking up of language for commercial purposes. And it's dumb.

But it also works. Salsas has enough of a legal warchest to make Footscray's fighting the good fight on this an absurd notion. It is far easier and less expensive to simply cow to the demands of the trademark bully than putting up a fight in court. Trademark bullying, in other words, works. But perhaps not without giving creative punk venue owners the last laugh.

Mr Bodiam said The Reverence would continue selling tacos on Tuesdays, but the night is now listed on its site as “Taco Sueday”.

Bravo, sir.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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