Armed UK Police Raid House Over Facebook Picture Showing Toy Weapon In Background

from the let's-get-rational dept

One of the reasons Techdirt rails against exaggerated responses to supposed terrorist threats is that it has caused police forces around the world to lose all sense of proportion -- literally, in the case of this UK story from the Daily Mail.

It began when Ian Driscoll decided to post a picture to his Facebook page. It was of an Action Man doll, accompanied by a toy Alsatian dog. Why? you might ask. Well, "as a laugh", he says, because the Action Man figure looked a lot like him, and he had a real Alsatian -- which sounds entirely reasonable. What Driscoll did not note at the time, though, was that lurking in the background of the picture was another toy: a model mortar.

Unfortunately, a few weeks later, someone else spotted that toy mortar and, mindful of the incessant UK government propaganda about terrorists being everywhere, duly over-reacted and reported the image. Even more unfortunately, the police also over-reacted -- to the extent of sending five officers, two armed with sub-machine guns (and you thought they didn't carry them in the UK), ready to smash down Driscoll's front door and go in with guns blazing against this supposed terrorist cell.

Luckily, Driscoll was there, and was able to defuse the situation by showing them the mortar in question. He was able to point out that it was in fact only slightly larger than the nearby Playstation that was clearly visible in the snap he had posted, and considerably smaller than the table that was also prominent in the Facebook picture. He might even have pointed out that the figure and dog in his upload were quite obviously toys to anyone who spent more than three seconds examining the picture. The police had presumably decided not to waste those precious three seconds before acting. Instead, as a spokesperson later said:

'We are sure that the community would rather we acted quickly on information given to us of this nature, in case it had turned out to be a weapon.'

Well, no, actually: what the community would really like is for the police to use some intelligence before reaching for the sub-machine guns. If they had just stopped and looked carefully at the picture, it would have been evident that there was no possible threat here. And that's likely to be the case for many other incidents around the world where the police have assumed the worst.

That not only represents a huge waste of their valuable time and resources, it also perpetuates the corrosive idea that we should be constantly afraid and ready to report anything and anyone odd or vaguely suspicious, no matter how absurd it would seem to anyone looking at things rationally. This then creates a self-sustaining loop of public fear and police over-reaction. It's time to scale the rhetoric back, and to make common-sense judgments common again.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: overreaction, police, social media, terrorism, threats, toys, uk

Teri Buhl Threatens To Sue Us And Others; Still Seems Confused About The Law

from the some-free-advice dept

I had kind of thought that after we posted our response to Teri Buhl, who got upset about our original article about her whacko claims that her publicly posted tweets could not be quoted, that the story would hopefully fade away. However, this morning, Jim Romenesko, who allowed Buhl to "respond" to us via his blog, has published another story noting that the thanks he received from Buhl is that she is threatening to sue him. Lovely. Oh yeah, and in her communication with Romenesko, she apparently told him she's planning to sue us at Techdirt, too (which, by the way, is the first we've heard of this):

Today, Buhl is threatening to sue me for using the photo from her Twitter page. She says she owns the image and never gave me or others permission to publish it. She adds that she's going to file a small claims suit against Mark Bennett and Techdirt for keeping the photo on their sites after being told to take it down.

"I don't want add you the same list [sic]," she writes. "I'm asking Poynter and Knight to do the same thing today before I file."

My response to her: "Really, Teri?"

She replied:

yes really Jim – I am going to push it. It's a matter a principle I am sick of other publications lifting other jurnos ideas, photos, words etc… and printing them on their publications with out permission or proper credit with links etcc. I think it's an issue that should have been challenged a long time ago. I took the photo I own it etc…

Of course, in our last post on the subject, we suggested that Buhl acquaint herself with fair use rules. It would appear that she has chosen not to do that. We did not "lift" her "ideas, photos, words." We reported on her actions and statements.

It also appears that she has not familiarized herself with the nature of copyright law, and the fact that small claims courts have no jurisdiction over copyright issues. Not that I should be doing the legal work the lawyer she claims to have contacted failed to do, but 28 USC 1338 notes:

The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, copyrights and trademarks. No State court shall have jurisdiction over any claim for relief arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, plant variety protection, or copyrights.

This is kind of basic stuff.

Amusingly, just a few weeks ago, we wrote about the Copyright Office exploring the idea of setting up a small claims court for copyright. But, as of right now, it does not exist.

And, even if we ignored that pesky bit of information, we've still got the fair use hurdle, which she can't get past. She claims "I took the photo I own it etc." Except, it's not that simple. If she took the photo, she might hold the copyright on certain elements of the photo -- but that is not the same as "owning" the entire photo and being able to block any and all uses of it. This is another thing any lawyer would hopefully explain to her. Our use of the photo, to show the key point of contention that led to the story (her claiming via her Twitter profile, incorrectly, that no one could quote her Twitter feed), was clearly for the purpose of reporting on her claims. Suing us, Bennett (a lawyer) or Romenesko would not likely go well for Buhl who seems very focused on bluster, with little legal basis to back it up. We could go through a very, very, very long list of case law and the actual text of copyright law that shows that what we did is absolutely reasonable and protected action, but I guess we'll save it for this "lawsuit" should it ever actually be filed.

Oh, and one more thing. In the comments on the Romenesko post, she makes this rather incredible statement:

how about this - no one who wrote about this little debate has bothered to call an experienced copyright lawyer and get a comment. I did before I wrote Jim.

This is actually wrong on so many levels. The initial story, involving her original claims, included "experienced copyright lawyer" Marc Randazza noting that her claims were "moronic." However, for her edification, this morning I reached out to three more "experienced copyright lawyers" who agreed that she doesn't seem to understand the law, on a whole variety of levels, as we discussed in our response to her many attempts to contact us, and as explained above.

In the meantime, Mark Bennett, who wrote the original post that kicked this whole thing off, has been doing a nice job cataloging the ever-changing legal theories that Buhl keeps tossing out there -- none of which have much basis in reality:

1. That republishing tweets designated "not for publication" can be the basis for a lawsuit.
2. That she hadn't written the tweets I republished ("Mark did you fact check my twitter feed to make sure I tweeted what you published?").
3. That I libeled her.
4. That retweeting "protected" tweets can be the basis for a lawsuit ("I think the question is if tweets are protected are they public").
5. That republishing her tweets violates her copyright.
6. That republishing her background photo violates her copyright.

As he notes: "Changing theories is always a good indication that the person threatening a lawsuit has no good reason to sue: if you have a reason to file suit, you know it."

So, once again, Ms. Buhl might want to think carefully before proceeding with any planned legal action against us or others. Contrary to her stated opinion, these are not unsettled matters, nor is the law in her favor. Similarly, she might want to recognize that, once proven wrong, digging in and making further claims is not a productive course of action. Sometimes it's okay to admit that you were wrong, and to let it go.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, jim romenesko, mark bennett, reporting, small claims, small claims court, teri buhl, threats

North Korea Threatens To Nuke US With Copied Video Game Footage

from the so-is-that-infringement? dept

If you happened to check your favorite major news site in the past 24 hours, you probably already know about this incredibly strange video North Korea's state media has been running, in which a peacefully sleeping Korean man dreams of a nuclear rocket detonating on American soil while Korean text is overlayed and Michael Jackson's "We Are The World" plays in the background.

Awww, we think about you when we're dreaming, too, you guys!

Now, since I can't translate Korean, I can only assume the text amounts to some kind of assertion that Michael Jackson was taken long before his time by a massive American military plot and that a nuke up our rectums will be issued as retribution. Really, who can tell? But I'll tell you what I can translate, and that's video game footage. I say this because it turns out that North Korea, in the tradition of the Chinese Air Force, apparently decided to simply yank a bunch of nuke footage from Modern Warfare 3 to use in this wonderfully disturbing bit of propaganda. This side by side will show you the rip.

Essentially, that terribly frightening part where New York is ablaze is all from MW3, with an additional explosion or two added along side a grainy filter and 'Ol Glory. For most normal people in The States, their reaction to this is probably, "So what?" But I know Techdirt readers aren't all in the States, nor are they normal, so I'm sure amongst your first thoughts was, "Hey! That's copyright infringement!" Well, the Forbes post got our juices flowing with this:

UPDATE: Activision actually DID have it killed, which is sort of hilarious.

America! So mark today as the day that copyright saved us all... And you people say we never have anything good to say about... Oh, wait... it turns out that the original video was actually taken down by the user who uploaded it (i.e., whatever North Korea's version of Ronaiah Tuiasosopo is), so it wasn't so much a victory for America! as it was a failure of America!'s media fact-checking efforts.

Filed Under: copyright, modern warfare 3, north korea, nuclear, threats, video games

On This Internet Freedom Day, Download A Free Book: On Internet Freedom

from the enjoy dept

Lawyer Marvin Ammori has had an uncanny knack for being deeply involved in a few key battles for internet freedom over the years, including the SOPA fight last year. As today is the one year anniversary of the big January 18th blackout that effectively killed SOPA/PIPA -- a day many are calling "Internet Freedom Day" -- Ammori has put together a fantastic Kindle Single (i.e., short ebook) entitled On Internet Freedom. Just for Internet Freedom Day, the book is available free. If you don't have a Kindle device, but do have a smartphone/tablet, you can still download it today for free and then read it whenever you get around to it. Ammori shared a draft copy with me, and it's a very worthwhile read. Not only does it discuss a variety of battles concerning internet freedom, it pulls them all together to look at why these battles are happening... and why they're going to continue. As such, it's an important book for people to read to understand some of the larger issues at play, and why we need to continue to be vigilant in making sure the internet remains free and open. If you don't pick up your free copy today -- or if you just want to support some good causes -- after today the ebook will still be available for $4.99, with all of the profits being donated to Demand Progress and Fight for the Future, two of the leading activist groups fighting on these issues.

Filed Under: internet freedom, marvin ammori, net neutrality, pipa, sopa, threats

Victoria's Secret Doesn't Want To Be Associated With A Campaign About Respecting Women, Issues Takedown

from the no-respect dept

The EFF has a post up about how Victoria's Secret sent a legal nastygram to an ISP taking down a parody campaign by an anti-rape organization, FORCE, called Pink Loves Consent. The campaign was a parody designed to raise awareness of these issues, by mocking Victoria's Secret's "PINK" line of clothing, that includes underwear that says things like "sure thing" and "unwrap me." The parody campaign replaced those with things like "ask first" and "respect." The page showed what Victoria's Secret could have done to put forth a more positive, more respectful message... and the company's response was to go straight to the hosting company and demand the site be taken down (which it was, though they found a new host who was willing to put it back up). Parody is a key element of free speech -- and issuing a takedown over this seems like a pretty clear attempt to stifle free speech. And, really, it just makes Victoria's Secret look really, really obnoxious. Were its lawyers really so offended by positive messages, rather than pure sexual objectification?

Filed Under: lingerie, parody, respect, speech, threats, trademark, underwear

BPI Threatens To Sue UK Pirate Party Leaders Personally Due To Internet Proxy

from the wac-wac-wac'ing-that-mole dept

With the BPI (the UK equivalent of the RIAA) successfully getting access to The Pirate Bay blocked via many UK ISPs, it's apparently turned its quixotic sights to the UK Pirate Party for daring to set up a proxy -- as if there aren't hundreds, if not thousands, of other existing proxies out there, and plenty of ways for people to get to the site if they really want to. And, rather than just threaten legal action against the Pirate Party UK (PPUK), the BPI has lovingly sent threat letters to six members of the PPUK National Executive, suggesting that it is ready to sue each of them personally. The BPI is claiming that it has to do this, since it can't sue the party directly, and apparently takes offense at some claims that this is an attempt to bankrupt the leaders of the PPUK. Of course, that's hogwash. Being threatened with a personal lawsuit -- especially by an organization that represents a group of multinational, multibillion dollar companies -- is, without question, a threat of being bankrupted. The BPI does have another choice: give up this silly game of whac-a-mole, stop trying to censor the internet, and teach its member companies how to adapt with new and smarter business models. But, apparently, it's easier to bankrupt your critics.

Filed Under: free speech, pirate party, proxy, threats, uk, uk pirate party
Companies: bpi

Anti-Piracy Group Demanding -- And Getting -- Domain Names From Torrent Sites

from the nice-little-site-you-have-there dept

Remember when Righthaven used to demand the URLs of sites it accused of infringement, based on nothing but wishful thinking? Apparently the UK "anti-piracy" group FACT has taken that to a new level, reaching out to numerous sites it believes are guilty of encouraging infringement, and asking them to hand over their sites... or face a lawsuit. This is only slightly nicer than having the government come in and seize the domains, but barely. Considering that FACT was the group that ran the privately funded lawsuit against SurfTheChannel's Anton Vickerman, it at least suggests that they might actually take various sites to court. And, in response, many sites are just handing over the domains. That's gotta be cheaper and easier than fighting, and that seems to be a lot of what FACT is banking on. Still, demanding a URL as a condition of not getting prosecuted really does seem like bullying activity that borders on extortion. You'd think that FACT would have better things to do these days than go after websites it doesn't like with expensive threats.

Filed Under: domain names, fact, threats, uk

Latest Company To Discover The Streisand Effect: Casey Movers

from the how-not-to-internet dept

Earlier this year, I was at a conference where there was an entire presentation on The Streisand Effect. Considering I first came up with the term and have chronicled it over the years (and had already been asked to speak on a different topic at the conference), I offered to help out with that session -- and got back no response. I went to the session to watch, and it was a really fun session, which didn't need any help from me at all. It was done by Conrad Saam, who works for Urban Spoon (and previously Avvo) and had a ton of great examples of the Streisand Effect and the impact on online reputation management. One element of online reputation management that he'd discussed, which I hadn't paid as much attention to, was the basics on how to deal with online reviews -- with a specific focus on Yelp. There were some dos and donts... and two key things not to do were (1) threaten people who write negative reviews and (2) post fake positive reviews.

Phil Buckley has a story of a Massachusetts-based moving company, called Casey Movers, which appears to have violated both of those rules, starting with a legal threat to Buckley's wife concerning a negative review she had written about Casey Movers 18 months ago, after her parents had a very bad experience with the company. It first took the company over a year to even notice the review and then post a weak defense of its practices. It didn't respond to any of the specific complaints about unprofessional behavior or broken promises. It only focused on the amount that the company had been willing to pay for damages, and gave a somewhat "technical" response about how this was what the "insurance option" she chose provided -- and even could be read as scolding her for not choosing the more expensive insurance option.

And yet... five months later (18 months after the original complaint went up), the same guy who wrote that bizarre defense sends a threat letter saying that the company is prepared to sue for libel if the review isn't removed: Of course, rather than having the intended effect, it just made Buckley furious (and quite reasonably so). Buckley had no interest in removing the review, but rather than just telling Casey Movers to pound sand, he started investigating. He found a variety of other negative reviews... but also a large number of reviews that had significant circumstantial evidence that the company was likely posting fake positive reviews (or had hired a company to do so). It's fun to watch the investigation progress, so it's worth reading the whole thing, but here's a snippet:

Someone decided enough was enough and decided to get some good reviews at CitySearch where they now have a majority of good reviews, except there’s a problem, they’re not real reviews. You may ask how I can say that with so much confidence? Go look at them yourself, one after another… notice how most names are generic or don’t have a human photo? Yes that’s level 1 of suspicious reviews. Start looking at the reviews the “people” have left. It’s quite a coincidence that so many people who have used a Boston moving company have also loved a sprinkler repair guy in Anaheim, California and Fun Hawaii Travel out of Honolulu.

They also have a flurry of activity in August of 2012 – Aug 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14. That seems a bit sketchy as well.

His investigation also turned up that the company had been posting images of positive review letters that some customers had signed, but in doing so, revealed all their private info. Buckley contacted a few who seemed surprised and said that they had not provided permission to reveal their private info.

For a while, Casey Movers and the main representative of the company involved in all of this, Matthew Overstreet, basically ignored Buckley. But as his story kept getting more attention, Overstreet finally reached out to Buckley -- and again just kept focusing on the "insurance coverage," a relatively minor issue (made even more minor following the ridiculous threat of a libel lawsuit). Eventually, Overstreet called Buckley on Wednesday night and seemed to indicate that there wasn't any interest in actually suing, though he refused to promise not to sue Buckley's wife.

Either way, the whole story is yet another fun one to include in the long list of companies who get on the wrong side of the Streisand Effect. Going beyond that, it really shows how a bogus legal threat can lead to not just backlash and attention, but also much deeper investigations into whoever originated the threat -- and that might turn up other questionable activity, such as posting likely fake positive reviews to try to counter the real negative reviews. Oops.

Filed Under: fake reviewers, matthew overstreet, phil buckley, reviews, streisand effect, threats
Companies: casey movers, yelp

'Revenge Porn' Site Owners Escalate Their Failure, Going From Bogus DMCA Notices To Bogus Legal Threats

from the we're-going-to-need-a-bigger-FAILboat dept

Apparently, Chance Trahan and Craig Brittain of "revenge porn" site Is Anybody Down are still busily working on their shovel-ready project "Digging Our Own Internet Graves." When we checked in last time, the living proof that two heads are sometimes much, much worse than one had just served up a bogus DMCA notice in a weak effort to censor criticism.

Needless to say, the criticism hasn't ceased and nothing has been taken down. In fact, the boys have moved past the DMCA process and have moved on to completely bogus legal threats to us here at Techdirt, and a number of other sites as well. As described by Popehat, who has received an identical threat, it appears that Trahan and Brittain have decided to dive right into the always-entertaining "bumptious legal threat" arena.

Craig and Chance are now resorting to legal threats. One of them — probably Craig — has left two identical threats here, as well as at Adam's blog, on Wikipedia, and on a satirical video by Captain Obvious:

"Be advised that these actions, your slander and screen shots can and will be used as key factors should a case be pursued against you. Your posting, advertising, marketing, dissipating and otherwise disseminating the slanderous materials constitute actionable violations of Mr. Trahan and Mr Brittain's rights of privacy and publicity."

Adam refers to Adam Steinbaugh, who has been recapping the ongoing Is Anybody Down saga at his blog. This same "legal notice" has also been "served" to Is Anybody Down's Wikipedia page, which ironically enough is already slated for deletion. (Oh, and the Captain Obvious video is worth a watch, along with an earlier video dealing with infamous legal threatener, Charles Carreon.) [Oh, and remind me to start a tumblr called "Slander and Screen Shots" when I get some free time.]

Now, what did I say about starting a war of words with someone who knows way more words than you do? Ken at Popehat tears apart this latest missive from the overmatched duo, so that we don't have to:

This is a notably, remarkably stupid comment, even for an Internet Lawyer. First, slander is verbal; libel is written. Second, "be advised" is a reliable tell of an empty threat. Third, nobody is "marketing" anything; that sounds like an attempt to fabricate a copyright claim. All criticisms are non-commercial, making all quotes and screenshots fair use. Fourth, you gravel-knuckled troglodyte, you mean disseminating, not dissipating, and that word's already in the sentence. Fifth, Trahan and Brittain have no privacy or publicity rights to be free of criticism or satire, however popular that approach is to would-be censors.

This ongoing battle has all the hallmarks of a popcorn-worthy event (and it appears we now have a front row seat). On one side, you have respected and intelligent legal minds. On the other, two lugs who thought they could smarm their way into some easy money, only to find themselves neck-deep in a self-made hole. It appears their constant shouts for "MOAR SHOVEL!" very possibly won't be silenced until the dirt is well over their heads. 

Filed Under: chance trahan, craig brittain, is anybody down, threats

DOJ Hints At Additional Charges Against Kim Dotcom If He Launches Megabox

from the you-wouldn't-want-to-do-that,-now... dept

There have been a bunch of stories over the past month or so about how Kim Dotcom is supposedly getting ready to launch a new service called Megabox. We've purposely avoided such stories, mainly because they're pure hype and speculation for vaporware. If he actually launches something then perhaps there's a story there. Also, we're somewhat amazed (or possibly just amused) at Megaupload supporters who seem to already think that Megabox is an amazing idea, since the details reported about it certainly appear to be little different from garden variety malware, injecting ads into other sites. Either way, in a recent profile of Dotcom in Wired, he talks a little more about the new plans, suggesting that it was something to keep them busy while fighting the lawsuit.

That said, it appears that the Justice Department has seen the PR reports about the new vaporware and are effectively pre-warning Dotcom not to go forward with the plan.

A new filing from the DOJ in the US side of the lawsuit (embedded below), is really a response to Megaupload's recent request to have the charges against the company temporarily dismissed until such time as the individual defendants are extradited. As we've explained, this is mostly a procedural fight, over whether or not the company itself can be charged, despite not having a US presence. None of that directly impacts the individuals who have been charged, but certainly could impact the company's ability to launch a new business.

The DOJ filing mostly argues that there is no legal or practical reason to allow the case to be dismissed, even temporarily, as the individuals are still charged, and re-charging the company at a later date will just waste resources. It also argues that Dotcom's US-based lawyers are the real problem here, as they had offered to accept service of the lawsuit in exchange for some sort of deal early on (which the DOJ refused).

What's interesting about the filing is that, without directly addressing the new effort to launch Megabox or whatever Dotcom is calling the new thing, they appear to be warning him that doing so may lead to additional charges against him. The argument as it relates to the procedural question is that, in his push to be allowed to post bail in New Zealand, Dotcom clearly indicated that he would not and could not restart Megaupload or a similar business, because the government had so completely shut him down. As that relates to the procedural question, the DOJ is arguing that there can be no "harm" to the company Megaupload because Dotcom has already said he won't relaunch the company. So if he won't relaunch, what does it matter if the company is charged now or later?

But then the DOJ goes a little further. After it uses all those quotes of him promising not to relaunch anything while out on bail, the DOJ tosses the following into a footnote:

Defense Counsel’s claim that the corporate defendant can and should be allowed to operate undermines the sworn statements of Dotcom that he has no plans or ability to continue to operate or fund the businesses in the Indictment during pendency of the extradition process. If defendant Dotcom intentionally misled the court in New Zealand about his intentions and capabilities in order to obtain his release from pre-extradition confinement, it seems Defense Counsel’s representation might endanger Dotcom’s bail situation or even subject him to additional charges.

In other words, beyond this procedural question, the DOJ is hinting that if Dotcom launches something new, they may say he violated the conditions for getting bail.

The DOJ also uses this as an opportunity to (once again) try to block Megaupload from using its law firm, claiming that because the lawyers are arguing for the case against Megaupload to be dismissed, and this might lead Dotcom to launch something new, that there's a conflict of interest:

The issue raised by the claim of Defense Counsel is particularly awkward since defendant Dotcom is also their client. As the government has pointed out repeatedly, there are a number of conflicts in Defense Counsel’s representations of the various defendants in this matter, of which this is only the most recent example, that have yet to be reviewed by the Court

None of that actually makes much sense. Whether or not they have a legitimate claim for getting the case against Megaupload dismissed, that is a separate issue from whether or not Dotcom launches something new. While I'm guessing the procedural fight is a dead end, the fact that the DOJ is even using that to toss additional threats at Dotcom should he launch his new project shows that they'll leave no stone unturned in trying to hit back at Dotcom.

Filed Under: doj, kim dotcom, mega, megabox, threats
Companies: megaupload