As Congress Debates CISPA, Companies Admit No Real Damage From Cyberattacks

from the the-truth-is-so-inconvenient dept

Since the beginning of the cybersecurity FUDgasm from Congress, we've been asking for proof of the actual problem. All we get are stories about how airplanes might fall from the sky, but not a single, actual example of any serious problem. Recently, some of the rhetoric shifted to how it wasn't necessarily planes falling from the sky but Chinese hackers eating away at our livelihoods by hacking into computers to get our secrets and destroy our economy. Today, Congress is debating CISPA (in secret) based on this assumption. There's just one problem: it's still not true.

The 27 largest companies have now admitted to the SEC that cyberattacks are basically meaningless and have done little to no damage.

The 27 largest U.S. companies reporting cyber attacks say they sustained no major financial losses, exposing a disconnect with federal officials who say billions of dollars in corporate secrets are being stolen.

MetLife Inc., Coca-Cola Co. (KO), and Honeywell International Inc. were among the 100 largest U.S. companies by revenue to disclose online attacks in recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Citigroup Inc. (C) reported “limited losses” while the others said there was no material impact.

So what's this all really about? It goes back to what we said from the very, very beginning. This is all FUD, engineered by defense contractors looking for a new way to charge the government tons of money, combined with a willing government who sees this as an opportunity to further take away the public's privacy by claiming that it needs to see into corporate networks to prevent these attacks.

If this was a real problem, wouldn't we see at least some evidence?

Filed Under: cispa, companies, cybersecurity, harm, threats

Hilarious And Ridiculous: Networks Threaten To Pull Channels Off The Air If Aereo & Dish Win Lawsuits

from the call-their-bluff dept

The entertainment industry has a long, long history of claiming that if copyright law doesn't go their way, they'll all go out of business. It's the adult version of "if you don't do it my way, I'm taking my ball and going home." If court cases don't go their way, or if the law isn't changed, we've been told over and over and over again for the last century (and more frequently in the last two decades) that the industry will take its ball and go home, because they won't create under such awful circumstances (even if those circumstances really aren't particularly different than they've operated under for years). The latest? First, Fox's COO, Chase Carey, claims that if they lose the Aereo case, they might shut down Fox, the network TV channel, and move all its content to cable TV channels.

“If we can’t have our rights properly protected through legal and governmental solutions, we will pursue business solution. One solution would be to take the network and make it a subscription service. We’re not going to sit idly by and let people steal our content.”

That came out about the same time as another quote from a TV exec, Garth Ancier, who has worked at Fox, NBC and WB, basically saying the same thing, arguing that an unnamed "two" of the four major networks are considering shutting down if the Aereo case (and possibly the Dish Auto Hopper case) goes against them.

“I know two that are talking about it,” he says, leaving open the possibility that the others might be as well. He declines to specify which, saying he’d heard it in a “talking over coffee” setting and didn’t want to betray a confidence....

“To say it’s serious is probably an overstatement,” Ancier says. Rather, it’s a contingency plan the networks in question are keeping in their back pockets in case they can’t prevail over Aereo and Dish in court or find some other way to stave off the threat they represent.

Let's be the first to call bullshit on this. No networks are stupid enough to shut down over this, and if they are, good riddance. Put that spectrum to better use. First of all, network TV shows get a lot more viewers. By a wide margin. Yes, there's an occasional cable show (Game of Thrones) that sneaks in to the top ratings, but it's pretty rare. The cable shows that get the most viewers are still viewed a lot less often than most network shows. If you look at Nielsen's latest rankings for last week, the top 10 network shows all scored higher ratings than the top cable show (Walking Dead). And by the time you're at the 4th most popular cable show, you're talking about a show that's getting just around half of the tenth most popular network show.

No network with any business sense at all is going to give up that prime position for getting viewers, and shunt themselves off into the hinterlands of cable TV. And, seriously, if they do want to cede that position, I'm sure there are plenty of smart folks willing to take over that position. And, of course, nothing that Aereo or Dish Hopper is trying to do does anything to threaten the traditional business model of network TV in the first place: ads. In fact, both serve to increase viewers. The real issue is that the networks have gotten fat and happy off of the money they get from cable and satellite companies for carrying the networks, and they don't want that gravy train to go away. So, an artificial situation came up that let them get lots of money, and now that it might go away (and reality is that it won't go away for a long long time) they're threatening to take their ball and go home?

This is clearly bullshit whining from the networks hoping that lawmakers will protect their revenues from cable and satellite providers. It has nothing to do with "stealing content" as Carey claims. Policy makers would be well served to call the networks' bluff. Let the cases play out and let's see (1) if the networks really give up their prime real estate and (2) if others don't rush in to make use of it.

Filed Under: auto hopper, cable, chase carey, copyright, garth ancier, hopper, nab, network tv, threats
Companies: abc, aereo, cbs, dish, fox, nbc

Organization That Plagiarized Guide On Making Science Posters Has Pricey Lawyer Threaten Original Creator With Copyright Claim

from the where-do-they-find-these-people dept

A bunch of folks have been sending in variations on the story about Colin Purrington, a guy who apparently created a "guide" to creating posters for scientific conferences that is somewhat popular online. The crux of the story is that Purrington, who has left academia, still spends time asking folks to take down any copies of his work -- and he's a bit obnoxious about it frankly -- mocking anyone who suggests that a copy might involve fair use. He doesn't seem to recognize that fair use exists.

Contents copyright Colin Purrington (1997-2013). Plagiarizing, adapting, and hosting elsewhere prohibited. Included in the plagiarizing prohibition is paraphrase plagiarism, which is when you copy sentences and phrases but make minor word changes to mask your theft. Also, I have lost my patience with people claiming that Fair Use allows them to bypass my copyright. Really, folks?

Well, yes, actually. That's the whole point of fair use. If it's fair use, it does let you bypass copyright. His copyright claim is a pretty clear example of copyfraud, overclaiming certain rights. Also, while I agree that he certainly may hold the copyright on the work, significant parts of the work are basically just factual statements, which generally aren't subject to copyright protection, or, at the very least, very weak copyright protection.

That said, none of that means he deserves what then happened. He apparently sent one of his "hey stop it!" letters to Purdue University's DMCA takedown address and cc'ing a general catchall email at the The Consortium for Plant Biotechnology Research (CPBR) after finding parts of his guide in a document hosted on the Purdue site, which was discussing an upcoming CPBR competition. While I think that Purrington goes way, way, way overboard in his claims about his own copyright, it does seem fairly clear that CPBR copied significant portions of Purrington's own work. The original file is no longer on the Purdue website, though you can see it here (or embedded below). As the folks at Retraction Watch have pointed out, it's pretty clear that the CPBR version copies heavily from Purrington's document.

For what it's worth, while Purrington sent a notice to Purdue's DMCA address, his letter is clearly not a DMCA-compliant / takedown letter, and really does seem to be more of a "hey, you should take this down" admonition, including an exceptionally jokey closing line:

If you can cover the shipping charges, I would be grateful if you to send me the head of the person who did this.

Har har. Still, what came back was quite unexpected. A threat letter from CPBR's very expensive lawyers at big shot law firm, Arnold & Porter. These guys cost a lot. In that letter, they claim that CPBR didn't copy Purrington, but rather that Purrington copied CPBR and that now that they were aware that Purrington had violated the copyright on CPBR, they were threatening him with statutory damages, up to $150,000 for willful infringement, for copyright infringement if he didn't take down his work.

Oh yeah, and they claim that jokey last line is being viewed "as a physical threat against [CPBR staff's] personal safety" and warn that if any further threats are made, they will go to the authorities.

While Purrington's guide has moved around online a few times (and ridiculously, no one covering this seems to link back to the original), you can find the earlier version that supports his story if you look in the Internet Archive for the guide's old address at Swarthmore. CPBR's letter clearly claims that CPBR created the content in 2005. Purrington's guide dates back to 2001, though it is a bit different. Still, you can find both of the key passages highlighted by RetractionWatch in a late 2004 version of Purrington's document (though, oddly, one of the copied phrases only shows up right at the very end of 2004, but that's still before 2005).

CPBR is a big organization. It takes in tens of millions of dollars in government grants and then fees it out to universities to do research. You'd think that it would know better than to claim copyright over something when there's pretty clear evidence that it was the one doing the copying.

While I find Purrington's position on copyright a bit ridiculous (also: his continual confusion between plagiarism and copyright, his refusal to acknowledge fair use within the law, and inability to compose a complaint DMCA takedown notice), it does seem pretty clear here that the party over reacting (massively) is CPBR. When the Chronicle of Higher Education reached out to both CPBR's director and the lawyer who wrote the letter, it appears that both hung up on the reporter. It might be time to admit that they royally screwed up here.

Filed Under: colin purrington, copyright, fair use, plagiarism, science posters, threats
Companies: consortium of plant biotechnology research, cpbr

Copyright As Censorship: University Threatens Own Faculty With Copyright Infringement For Campus Survey

from the institutes-of-higher-learning dept

This story is incredible. Saint Louis University is threatening a faculty member with copyright infringement claims for his decision to take a survey of his colleagues. It appears that the faculty and the administration have been battling with each other recently, leading to a "no confidence" vote by students and faculty of the University provost. In response, the Board of Trustees sent around a "climate survey" to faculty, staff and students -- but some had complained that the questions were not useful and only asked one question about the leadership of that provost, Lawrence Biondi. In response, some of the faculty designed their own "supplemental survey" for other faculty members that included more questions, specifically about Biondi's relationship with the faculty itself.

The Saint Louis University chapter of the American Association of University Professors responded to the board's surveys by attempting to devise its own "AAUP Supplemental Survey" for faculty members that would include specific questions about Father Biondi. Where the university's survey for faculty members asked how much they agreed or disagreed with the statement "The university appreciates the contributions of the faculty," the AAUP survey would, for example, ask how much respondents agreed with the statement "The president appears to respect and value the faculty."

However, the University is having none of this and has threatened the AAUP's President with claims of copyright infringement.

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch article on March 27 mentioned the AAUP chapter's plan for a survey. The next day the chapter's president, Steven G. Harris, a professor of mathematics and computer science, received a letter from William R. Kauffman, the university's vice president and general counsel, telling him that the university's new surveys are copyrighted and any use of them would violate federal law.

Mr. Kauffman's letter said that anything derived from the university's surveys would likewise be regarded as a violation of the university's rights. "Any infringement," the letter said, "will be addressed by the university and could result in legal action" in which the university could seek injunctive relief, damages, and the recovery of any legal fees.

This is incredible on so many levels, none of which makes Saint Louis University look good. First, this is a clear case of using copyright to censor, rather than for any legitimate purpose of copyright (it's like the University needed the incentives of copyright to develop this survey). Second, the "supplemental survey" is clearly asking different questions, not the same questions. Third, it's difficult to see how basic survey questions would have enough creative element to qualify for copyright protection in the first place, and even in the rare cases where they did, it would be likely that the protection would be quite thin, and hardly likely to be infringed upon by a separate and different set of questions.

But, most importantly, if the University board was looking to suggest that the faculty was happy with the administration, it would appear that threatening a bogus copyright infringement lawsuit demonstrates the exact opposite message. Truly incredible.

Unfortunately, the chilling effects of the threat may be working in silencing the survey attempt:

"The issue," he said, "is not whether the university will prevail in such a suit but whether I would be forced to run up enormous legal bills to defend against such a suit."

Of course, given that the likely point of the supplemental survey was to highlight problems between the administration and the faculty, the threat of the lawsuit seems to have accomplished that goal already.

The Chronicle of Higher Education also notes that Saint Louis University has sued another professor over questionable copyright claims before, and even though that professor won, he still racked up $10,000 in legal bills. And yet, the maximalists tell us, there are no examples of copyright being used to stifle free speech...

Filed Under: campus survey, censorship, copyright, threats
Companies: saint louis university

Not Connecting: Miami Marlins Organization Threatens Season Ticket Holders With Lawsuit Because They Want To Change Seats

from the yes,-seriously dept

Way back in ancient 2009, Mike wrote a piece highlighting one spectacularly awful example of a business going out of their way to alienate their fans. We talk a great deal about connecting with customers here, but when we saw the Washington Redskins suing season ticket holders, who weren't able to keep to their contract terms after the economic downturn, we had to point it out. In that case, the actual contract language was on the Redskins' side, although in similar cases, sports franchises rarely go after their customers in that manner. Instead, typically the team and customers work out an amicable deal to resell the tickets or provide for some kind of payment plan. In other words: suing your fans is a crappy way to do business.

But what if I told you that there's a worse example of a professional sports franchise threatening to sue their own fans? What if I told you that the customers they were threatening were perfectly happy to continue paying for their seats, despite the team doing everything in their power to alienate the fans, but the customers just wanted to sit in different seats, which they say the contract allows for? And what if I told you that all of this hate and bile comes from the team with the most obnoxiously festive stadium in pro sports?
Little known fact: the entire stadium is made out of tropical flavor skittles
Image source: CC BY 2.0 Don't believe that all of the above could be true? Let me introduce you to the Miami Marlins of Major League Baseball.

The flea-market ownership of the Miami Marlins have let down their fans too many times to count through the years, whether it's running one of their traditional fire sales — see: November's $160 million salary dump — or pocketing revenue-sharing money intended for players. Or, lest we forget, getting South Florida taxpayers to plunk down 80 percent of the cost for a new $634 million baseball park. But this might take the cake even for them.

The team has threatened to sue Bill and Jan Leon, season ticket holders since 1998, for having the gall to ask for a different seat location — as they say the ticket agreement permits — and refusing to pay when the team failed to comply. The New Miami Times reports the Leons signed a two-year agreement for their tickets (at $25,000 per year) with the option of changing their seats if they were unhappy with their location after the first season. Which they were, thanks to a sign that obstructed their view.

Yes, you read that right. After bilking taxpayers out of a huge chunk of money to build their stadium, the team is suing two season ticket holders for asking to switch seats. Now, I know what you're thinking: surely this must have happened because the team couldn't accommodate their request to move their seats. You're thinking that all the rest of the seats in the stadium must have been gobbled up by Floridians. Well, if you are, you're wrong. The Marlins drew enough attendance last year, the first year of their new stadium (generally considered to provide a bump in attendance), to not quite fill 75% of the seats. In other words, if the team had wanted to be amicable, they had over a quarter of their skittle stadium to choose from to reseat the Leons. Instead they're suing, because evil doesn't do logic.

Filed Under: connecting, fans, threats
Companies: miami marlins

Motion Picture Association: The Cloud Is A Threat To Us And The Best Response Is Censorship

from the hammers-and-nails dept

The Motion Picture Association is somewhat notorious for flipping out over every new technology and how it will, without doubt, mean death for them. Most famously, of course, the prediction that the VCR would be the "Boston Strangler" to the movie industry a mere six years before home video revenues outstripped box office revenues. However, this seems to be somewhat instinctual behavior. Everything new must automatically be classified as a threat, and the best response is to kill it outright. The latest version of this appears to be the threat of (gasp!) "cloud computing." At a get together in Hong Kong, in which the movie industry was supposed to be talking about "protecting the screen community in the cloud era" apparently there was the typical predictions of doom with little in the way of suggestions. But there were some. Frank Rittman, the SVP of the Motion Picture Association, explained that the cloud was evil and censorship was the answer:

The news was even worse from Frank Rittman, SVP of the Motion Picture Association, Asia Pacific, who stated that potential pirates have all the digital tools they need to make illegal media sharing more viral than ever. “Digital online technology has enabled new channels of delivery for entertainment media,” he said. “The cloud also represents a threat in that it facilitates piracy, and the pirates seem to have gotten into this space first.”

The answer to both problems, Rittman believes, is pushing for Internet Service Providers to block sites known to be troublemakers when it comes to Internet piracy. He pointed to examples of the practice in Europe, Indonesia, Malaysia, and South Korea as models of how this has worked as a low-cost way of cutting down on piracy that has met with some success.

He also complains that Hong Kong won't pass a law like this because the process has been "hijacked by extremists." Well, that's one way of looking at it. The alternative way is that arguing that flat out censorship of entire sites because you have been too slow to adapt, is crazy talk and is significantly more extremist than anything anyone else has been arguing. If you want to go after direct infringement, go after that. But censorship of entire sites is going way too far. And, contrary to his claims, it has not "worked" nor has it "met with some success." It hasn't driven people back to paying for movies.

Really, Rittman's statements are an example of the problem. Here are people so focused on "stopping piracy" that they don't care about the consequences of their own actions on innovation, nor do they care about whether or not it helps their own bottom line.

Filed Under: blocking, censorship, cloud, frank rittman, threats
Companies: mpa

Despite Threat Of $50,000 Fine, Montreal Designer Plans To Release More 'Real World' Counter-Strike Maps

from the if-at-first-you-don't-get-sued,-try,-try-again dept

Recently, we covered the story of a Canadian Counter-strike enthusiast who created a map based on a Montreal metro station. It was greeted with a thorough lack of enthusiasm by Montreal's transport authority (STM), which claimed the map might "create panic among the city's public transport users," before deciding to head off the whole situation using good, old-fashioned, pre-murder-simulator copyright. Diego Liatis, the creator of the map, was threatened with a $50,000 fine by STM, which has done little to deter his efforts.

Ars Technica has a followup story, detailing Liatis' refusal to back down.

Diego Liatis, a Montreal gamer and entrepreneur, told Ars that he still plans on releasing a Counter-Strike: Global Offensive map of Berri-UQAM, the city’s most well-known metro station. He's moving forward—the map is due sometime in March 2013—even if it means a drawn-out lawsuit brought by the local transit authority.

“If you ask me to change the name of the station—forget about it,” Diego Liatis told Ars, starting the sentence in French and switching to English for emphasis. “I understand [copyright law]. But there are limits, such as the name of the station.”

Liatis still believes he has the right to reproduce a real world location and is currently in negotiations (a polite word meaning "lawyers conversing") with the STM to determine what can be left in and what needs to be removed to satisfy the transport authority.

Liatis said he planned on meeting in person with STM representatives later this week. While he is willing to alter the STM logo and a well-known piece of art that hangs above a track, he’s not willing to compromise on the name of the station or its layout.

“Either [the STM] opposes me and we’ll meet in court,” Liatis added. “Or [the agency] will be OK with it.”

The February 11 cease-and-desist letter reminds Liatis that the STM “had warned you that it did not authorize you to use its image nor reproduction of the station in question for this project,” adding that use of its name, acronyms, graphic symbols, and seal are “prohibited by law unless permission is granted by the STM.”

Liatis may be logically "correct" but there's not much logic contained in IP laws. He may be determined to stick it to l'homme, but even members of the LAN ETS community are backing away from Liatis, most likely in hopes of a continued, lawsuit-free existence.

Simon Marin, a LAN ETS spokesperson, told Ars in an e-mail that the university, and by extension its LAN party event (LAN ETS), is "disassociating itself" from Liatis and his map. Marin did not provide any further explanation.

Despite the legal issues and disconnection from LAN ETS, Liatis plans to release the map in the near future. His pushback against government overreach and copyright-as-deterrent is admirable, but some aspects of this story are beginning to paint him as a possibly unreliable narrator.

As quoted in our original piece, and repeated in the update from Ars Technica, Liatis again states that the STM's representative had concerns about the map's usefulness to potential terrorists.

Liatis added that STM's media representative, Amélie Régis, expressed concern to him that releasing the map would allow it to be used by actual terrorists training for an actual attack. Régis also said it would be "insulting" to Montreal's Arab community.

The representative from STM, however, claims she never spoke to Liatis.

UPDATE Tuesday 5:42pm CT: Régis finally wrote back to Ars, saying that she had never spoken to Liatis, and was "really surprised to read the opposite." Ars has contacted Liatis again to clarify who exactly he spoke with at the STM.

Many governments have operated on faith-based paranoia since the 9/11 attacks, which makes it easy to believe Liatis' account of the events. Whatever concerns the STM might have had about "panics" or "terrorists," it may have kept them to itself. Nearly a week on from this interview, Ars is still waiting for Liatis to back up this claim. The STM may be using copyright to block a map it feels could potentially have this effect on would-be terrorists and/or the public, but so far, it hasn't officially stated anything to that effect.

Despite the lack of official statement, it still looks as if the STM simply wants to shut down something that represents its station but adds guns to the mix. Government entities are quick to shy away from anything controversial in the War on Terrorism age, and the STM seems to be no exception. There's a point to Liatis' efforts, but it's likely to be buried under a hefty fine and accompanying lawsuit as he shows no signs of backing down. It's a costly game of chicken and the end result may be nothing more than another footnote in case law reasserting the "right" of public entities to claim copyright protection on publicly accessible areas in order to prevent "misuse" by ordinary citizens.

Filed Under: canada, copyright, counter-strike, maps, montreal, subway, threats
Companies: stm

Bizarre Legal Threat Of The Day: Confused Zoo Owner Threatens Popehat Over... Well... Just Read It

from the i-don't-think-it's-legal-help-that-he-needs dept

Almost exactly three years ago, we wrote about a ridiculous situation down in Louisiana, where the "Global Wildlife Center" was able to get a judge to issue an injunction against an obviously satirical site that had written an obviously satirical article about "killer giraffes" and a "recent attack" at the Center. The article was poking fun at recent violent attacks at other zoos, normally involving animals like tigers and bears. It was amazing that a court issued the injunction, and thankfully, less than two weeks later, the injunction was removed and GWC was told to pay the legal costs for the site. And that was the last that we had heard of the Global Wildlife Center... until now.

On Friday, the Center's President apparently threatened to sue lawyer Ken White, better known as Popehat, defender of internet free speech. You see, Popehat had covered the original story too, and for some reason, the President, Ken Matherne, isn't too happy about that (even though it's three years later). Perhaps it was this tidbit in Popehat's original post (which was actually quoted from a local news site):

In addition to filing this lawsuit, via email Global Wildlife Foundation president Ken Matherne threatened to file criminal charges, FCC charges, fraud charges, an IRS complaint, a governor’s office complaint, and a federal lawsuit against Brilleaux. Matherne’s email did not explain any basis for the additional threats.

If that gives you a sense of Matherne's grasp on basic legal concepts, and his willingness to assume that he can use all sorts of totally unrelated laws against people he doesn't like, well, you're just getting a tiny little sense of what Popehat went through on Friday. You kind of have to read the whole thread on Popehat to get the full effect, because each time you think "this can't possibly get more ridiculous," it does exactly that. Assuming Matherne really did send the emails in question, he would appear to have almost as much trouble with the English language as he does with the legal concepts he uses to threaten White. Here's a snippet from the first email:

My last case to decide the Apple vs Microsoft case. I am not joking – you can send this email to the judge and soon as I file suit. I will ask you as I asked that kid to take it down, if you think your malice to to our Foundation is free speech – let’s get real lawyers and hosted judges to find out! It scared teachers, parents and the general public. They were canceling trips, it was malicious, and the evidence given to court was a fraud. I did not say anything at the time. But, I think he would get dis-board by the falsified documents he presented to the judge. His father was a friend or I would have had he dis-board.

Everyone will see the truth of you and your boyfriends. You can print this – You do not have a clue what you did to damage my foundation I created for my daughter. And when you wake up in the morning – hoping you have kids- I want you to think about what you have done. Your site has done more damage than the issue and my guys think your damages will be worse the any free speech issue. And we are ready!

We are going to dp this all legal – get ready – I will have one of your partners, associates , friends , spouses, in dispositions for the at least the next 6 – 12 months. Minimum – 1 lawsuit lasted 12.7 years, the next only 6 . I have the means – so write me back or get ready. This again is no threat. Simply a promise. It is no longer about what the kid did – it is about what your company did! And I promise you we will win = you have damaged my daughters trust for at least 50 years. You are about to meet the best attorneys on the planet.

There's also a discussion about Matherne's belief that White is apparently a dope smoking drug fiend who is having sexual relations with the partners at his law firm (or maybe on Popehat, it's not clear). White, quite calmly, asks Matherne if there was anything specific in the original post that he felt was a false statement of fact, and offered to review such claims and "make adjustments to the post if appropriate." Matherne's response was to just demand that the original Popehat article was taken down "or believe I will do everything for my daughter that you would do for your children !"

And then it got wacky.

Just send me you attorney of record – you will not hurt my daughter – I do not care what it cost ! Ken It was a BS move – and I appreciate that you do that for the best of people – but you always know our kids are first – and I don't care how many $ it takes – my daughter will not live with this – so I will ask you one more time to pull this down – as a gentleman – or I will come to you! My airplane is only 10k an hour – have more cash & Gold in the bank than you can imagine – but if you hurt my daughter through this – my executives has all authority to go until all is done – I only have 1 daughter and it breaks her heart to see this! I would not do this to you or your family!

I really love this line: "My airplane is only 10k an hour – have more cash & Gold in the bank than you can imagine."

White points out, in response, that he is still waiting for any specific inaccuracies, and notes that he's willing to speak to any attorney representing Matherne -- to which Matherne initially sent a simple "Game on!" email, followed by this (not the full email, which has more where this came from):

Get your check book out – and unless you can buy every judge to the State Supreme Court – you will pay damages = not about freedom of speech –
Oh, And I will follow up with everything I said I would do. Ken White, You better have an attorney or get one .

Cannot wait to meet you – You are and I can “quote again” a piece of shit! You do a disservice to mankind. I hope the judge we come before understands what a parasite you are and does not want his kids or grandchildren to be exposed to someone like you!

And I do not care about are inaccuracies about was said or texted. You are wrong and you are libel. Again, I do not lose lawsuits, and I do not think to can pay off the judges!

If I'm reading this right, and I believe that I am, Matherne is not only threatening to take White to court under some ridiculous legal theories, but he is flat out admitting that he does "not care" about "inaccuracies." He also seems to be admitting throughout that he's doing this to tie White up in court. I would imagine that if this ever actually got to a court and wasn't thrown out immediately, these admissions would not help his case very much.

Randomly, out of curiosity, I went to check out the website for the Global Wildlife Foundation, and discovered that if you have Javascript turned off, you can see that they've got a ton of "payday loans" spam links hidden on their page. Either they've been hacked or they're selling link spam. Maybe they should take care of that before issuing bogus legal threats trying to censor a lawyer known for vocally defending the First Amendment.

Filed Under: defamation, ken matherne, ken white, legal threats, popehat, threats, vexatious litigation
Companies: global wildlife center, global wildlife foundation

Non-profit Responds To Threatened Lawsuit From Ferrari By 'Remaking' Video To Hide The Ferrari

from the but-solidar-hits-back dept

Qûr Tharkasdóttir writes in to let us know that luxury automobile maker Ferrari is allegedly threatening to sue Swiss NGO Solidar (actually a network of NGOs focused on social justice) for daring to use a Ferrari in their recent commercial that appears to be making fun of rich bankers. The original is here (for now, at least): In response, Solidar has released an updated version of the commercial in which, they've made a small change. See if you can spot it: Just in case you can't see the videos, here are two screenshots. First from the original video: And here's the "new" version. You might spot the change. You'd think that a brand like Ferrari would know better than to threaten a group focused on increasing social justice around the globe. There's no way that argument ends well for Ferrari -- even if they "win."

Filed Under: ngo, threats, trademark
Companies: ferrari, solidar