TECHLASH 2.0: The Next-Gen TECHLASH Is Bigger, Stronger & Faster

from the escalation dept

The roll-out of the “Facebook Papers” on Monday October 25 felt like drinking from a fire hose. Seventeen news organizations analyzed documents received from the Facebook whistleblower, Frances Haugen, and published numerous articles simultaneously. Most of the major news outlets have since then published their own analyses on a daily basis. With the flood of reports still coming in, “Accountable Tech” launched a helpful aggregator: facebookpapers.com.

The volume and frequency of the revelations are well-planned. All the journalists were approached by a PR firm, Bryson Gillette, that, along with prominent Big Tech critics, is supporting Haugen behind-the-scenes. “The scale of the coordinated roll-out feels commensurate with the scale of the platform it is trying to hold accountable,” wrote Charlie Warzel (Galaxy Brain).

Until the “Facebook Papers,” comparisons of Big Tech to Big Tobacco didn’t catch on. In July 2020, Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook, Sundar Pichai of Google, Jeff Bezos of Amazon, and Tim Cook of Apple were called to testify before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust. A New York Times headline claimed the four companies prepare for their “Big Tobacco Moment.” A year later, this label is repeatedly applied to one company out of those four, and it is, unsurprisingly, a social media company.

TECHLASH 1.0 started off with headlines like Dear Silicon Valley: America’s fallen out of love with you (2017). From that point, it becomes a competition “who slams them harder?” eventually reaching: Silicon Valley’s tax-avoiding, job-killing, soul-sucking machine (2018).

In the TECHLASH 2.0 era, the antagonism has reached new heights. The “poster child” for TECHLASH 2.0 - Facebook - became a deranging brain implant for our society or an authoritarian, hostile foreign power (2021). In this escalation, virtually no claim about the malevolence of Big tech is too outlandish in order to generate considerable attention.

As for the tech companies, their crisis response strategies have evolved as well. As TECHLASH 2.0 launched daily attacks on Facebook its leadership decided to cease its apology tours. Nick Clegg, *Facebook VP of Global Affairs, provided his regular “mitigate the bad and amplify the good” commentary in numerous interviews. Inside Facebook, he told the employees to “listen and learn from criticism when it is fair, and push back strongly when it is not.”

Accordingly, the whole PR team transitioned into (what company insiders call) “wartime operation” and a full-blown battle over the narrative. Andy Stone combated journalists on Twitter. In one blog post, the WSJ articles were described as inaccurate and lacking context. A lengthy memo called the accusations “misleading” and some of the scrutiny “unfair.” Zuckerberg’s Facebook post argued that the heart of the accusations (that Facebook prioritizes profit over safety) is “just not true.”

On Twitter, Facebook’s VP of Communications referred to the embargo on the consortium of news organizations as an “orchestrated ‘gotcha’ campaign.” During Facebook’s third-quarter earnings call, Mark Zuckerberg reiterated that “what we are seeing is a coordinated effort to selectively use leaked documents to create a false picture about our company.”

Moreover, Facebook attacked the media for competing on publishing those false accusations: “This is beneath the Washington Post, which during the last five years competed ferociously with the New York Times over the number of corroborating sources its reporters could find for single anecdotes in deeply reported, intricate stories,” said a Facebook spokeswoman. “It sets a dangerous precedent to hang an entire story on a single source making a wide range of claims without any apparent corroboration.”

Facebook’s overall crisis response strategies revealed the rise of VADER:

• Victimage - we’re a victim of the crisis
• Attack the accuser - confronting the person/group claiming something is wrong
• Denial - contradicting the accusations
• Excuse - denying intent to do harm
• Reminder - reminding the past good works of the company.

The media critics describe the current backlash as overblown, full of hysteria, and based on arguments that don’t stand up to the research. More aggressively, a Facebook employee told me: “If in this storyline, we are Vader, then the media is BORG – Bogus, Overreaching, Reckless, and Grossly exaggerated.” Leaving aside the crime of mixing “Star Wars” and “Star Trek,” we can draw a broader generalization:

Both the tech coverage and the companies’ crisis responses have evolved in the past few weeks. We moved from a peaceful time (pre-TECHLASH) to a Cold War (TECHLASH 1.0) and now “all Hell breaks loose” (TECHLASH 2.0).

“Product Journalism” still exists around new devices/services, but the recent “firestorm” teaches us a valuable lesson. The Next-Gen of TECHLASH is bigger, stronger and faster – just like the tech companies it’s fighting against.

* In another move from the playbook, Facebook was rebranded as Meta. Since Meta means Dead in Hebrew (to the world’s amusement), I will refer to Facebook as Facebook for the time being.

Dr. Nirit Weiss-Blatt is the author of The Techlash and Tech Crisis Communication

Filed Under: communications, techlash

Daily Deal: NYTSTND QUAD MagSafe Wireless + USB-C Charging Station

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

NYTSTND QUAD lets you charge up to 4 devices all at once. You can wirelessly charge 3 devices at once with the 5-coil full surface area and the built-in Genuine Apple Watch Magnetic charger. An integrated USB-C connector is available for charging another compatible device. This charging dock packs in protection protocols to keep your device and the charger itself safe. NYTSTND QUAD combines aesthetics and performance in a compact, elegant design. Made of premium Amish sourced wood and high-quality real leather, NYTSTND QUAD is designed to blend into any environment. It comes in four different colors and is on sale for $213.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal

FTC To Crack Down On Companies That Make Cancelling Services A Pain In The Ass

from the a-bit-overdue dept

Making it annoying to cancel a subscription has long been a proud American pastime. AOL was notorious for making it extremely difficult. Broadband and cable providers routinely make it a pain in the ass to cancel phone, broadband, or cable. And everyone from the Wall Street Journal to SiriusXM enjoy making signing up easy, but cancelling something that requires a phone call and time on hold. In COVID times, with support staffs often short handed, it's a practice that's become more annoying than ever.

In an about face from decades of regulatory apathy, Lina Khan's FTC has announced that the agency is going to start cracking down on companies that trick users into signing up for services, or making it an annoying headache to cancel:

According to the full FTC announcement and the company's new enforcement policy statement, the FTC is going to start cracking down harder on companies whose sign-up process fails to provide clear, up-front information, fails to obtain consumers’ informed consent, or fails to make cancellation easy (a lot of companies are horridly designing new website or app cancellation buttons and menus as you read this):

"Marketers should provide cancellation mechanisms that are at least as easy to use as the method the consumer used to buy the product or service in the first place."

It's hard to overstate how feckless regulatory enforcement has historically been on this front. Especially in sectors like telecom. Remember when journalist Ryan Block recorded his eight minute phone call trying to cancel Comcast service? And remember, despite significant public and press outrage, Comcast faced absolutely no accountability courtesy of limited competition and regulatory capture? In countless industries (even those that are more competitive) that's effectively the norm.

The FTC voted 3-1 to approve the new policy statement, the one dissent (pdf) coming from Donald Trump appointee Christine S. Wilson on what she claimed was procedural grounds. Of course saying you're going to crack down on this, and actually cracking down on the absolute parade of companies that engage in these kinds of behaviors is something else entirely. Especially for an agency with limited staff and resources. Still, in this age it's refreshing to see regulators simply do their job when it comes to simple proposals with broad bipartisan public support.

Filed Under: canceling, ftc, subscription fraud

'GTA' Modding Group Doesn't Fold, Fights Back In Court Against Take-Two, Rockstar

from the mod-squad dept

We've been talking a great deal about Take-Two Interactive and Rockstar Games lately as it relates to their aggressive actions on modding communities for the Grand Theft Auto series. This new war on modders really kicked off over the summer, with the companies looking to shut down a bunch of mods that mostly brought old GTA content into newer games for retro fans. Then came one modding group managing to reverse engineer the game to create its own version of the source code, which it posted on GitHub. Rockstar DMCA'd that project, but at least one modder managed to get GitHub to put it back up. That project was called "GTA RE3" and was supposed to be the basis to let other modders do all sorts of interesting things with the game from a modding standpoint, or to forklift the game onto platforms it wasn't designed for, say on a Nintendo console. Take-Two and Rockstar then cried "Piracy!" and filed a lawsuit.

That's typically where the story would end. The modding group would hide or run away if they could, or they would settle the suit for fear of a long and protracted legal process. But that doesn't appear to be the case here, as the four men behind RE3 have responded to the suit, denying all accusations and asserting fair use. The response from the modder's attorneys is embedded below, but mostly consists of outright one-sentence denials or assertions that the claims in the suit aren't such that they have enough knowledge to affirm or deny them, and therefore deny them. But there are also some nuggets in there that tease out what the defense would be if this thing proceeds.

Right off the bat, the defendants assert that anything they did in connection with their GTA 3 and Vice City projects were actions protected by fair use under the Copyright Act. If any copying of copyright-protected material did occur, that was undertaken to allow for interoperability of software and fixing bugs present in the original titles.

As a result, any alleged ‘reverse engineering’ of original code represents a transformative use of that content, i.e it added something new, with a further purpose or different character, and did not substitute for the original use of the work.

This is an interesting take. From what I've read on the project, you would typically need to have the source material, the original games, in order to make use of any of this code. That brings up the obvious question of whether there is any actual concern here of this reverse engineered code itself directly competing with the official games, particularly given that much of what this team did was done to patch bugs and apply fixes to games that Rockstar hasn't patched themselves for years and given how Take-Two has screwed around with how the public can even buy these games.

Another important fact highlighted in the answer to the complaint is that the defendants’ modifications are useless in their own right. In fact, anyone who wished to make use of ‘re3’ and ‘reVC’ could not do so without already possessing copies of GTA 3 and Vice City, games that Take-Two stopped making available for purchase on its online stores.

This leads to the question of whether the alleged conduct of the defendants affected the market for those games and if so, in what way. According to the answer, the mods did not affect the market but to the extent they did, any shift would’ve been positive since people needed to purchase the games to use the mods.

Notably, Rockstar has taken a far different route when it has come to dealing with other mods that improve aspects of GTA games in the past. One example would be a modder who essentially fixed long-loading times in GTA Online, only to have Rockstar pay them for it. And yet with RE3, where the stated aim of the modders was similar, it's all DMCA takedowns and lawsuits. And that mod wasn't the only one, nor apparently the only "approved" of mod that required reverse engineering of the source code.

Take-Two has previously allowed third parties to develop mods of its software (including for GTA 3 and Vice City) without any adverse action in response. That’s according to the answer which states that Take-Two (or its “subsidiaries or predecessors interest”) have “showcased” mods and even released portions of its software to the Multi Theft Auto (MTA) mod project.

“These supported, encouraged, or allowed ‘mod’ projects, upon information and belief, required the reverse engineering of software just as Defendants are alleged to have undertaken. Upon information and belief, Defendants had an implied license to undertake any complained of actions or Plaintiff abandoned is copyright,” the answer reads.

It's also notable that the response denies that any of this work was done within the United States. The response therefore questions why American copyright laws are being applied to activity that occurred outside of the country.

Will any of this work? That's obviously a question for the courts and/or a jury trial, but it is worth noting that all of this is not occurring in a vacuum. Instead, Take-Two and Rockstar have had a hell of a couple of weeks of bad press due to a botched release of GTA Trilogy and the disruption of its game launcher that made many of its PC games unplayable. To be in the midst of all of that and then be fighting these modders who are simply trying to make the games people have bought, or will buy, more playable is one hell of a bad look.

Filed Under: copyright, fair use, gta, gta re3, modding, video games
Companies: rockstar games, take-two interactive

Data Shows LA Sheriff's Department Is Stopping Tons Of Latino Bicyclists, Rarely Finding Anything Illegal

from the nothing-lousier-than-a-biased-dragnet dept

Law enforcement doesn't just engage in pretextual stops of cars. Bicyclists are on the radar as well, especially if they happen to be minorities. That's according to data obtained by the Los Angeles Times, which shows the LA Sheriff's Department (which has buried the needle on the far end of "problematic" for years) is targeting bike riders with tactics that fall somewhere between pretextual stop and stop-and-frisk.

A Los Angeles Times investigation found deputies search 85% of bike riders they stop even though they often have no reason to suspect they’ll find something illegal. Most bicyclists were held in the backseat of patrol cars while deputies rummaged through their belongings or checked for arrest warrants.

The Times' analysis of more than 44,000 bike stops logged by the Sheriff’s Department since 2017 found that 7 of every 10 stops involve Latino cyclists, and bike riders in poorer communities with large nonwhite populations are stopped and searched far more often than those in more affluent, whiter parts of the county.

Because they're not in vehicles, but rather on them, the stops are more analogous to Terry stops, which are supposed to be supported by reasonable suspicion. Bikes make that rights-skirting math even easier by introducing a set of obscure, rarely enforced traffic laws to use as pretexts for stops that often tend to end with a search of the rider and any belongings they have with them.

Some cyclists interviewed by the Times said they had been stopped on multiple occasions. Most found the stops -- for harmless infractions like missing reflectors or riding on a sidewalk (bike lanes are still pretty much a luxury in most of the county) -- made them feel angry or humiliated. Many respondents also recognized the stops for what they were, no matter what was said by deputies performing stops: fishing expeditions targeting minority bike riders.

Deputies seem to operate with the assumption that someone riding a bike by choice is a criminal.

Many bicyclists said they were asked if they were on probation or parole and if they had drugs or weapons. The Sheriff's Department data mirror their experiences. Deputies asked 93% of riders about their probation or parole status.

This low-level oppression has resulted in a sort of defeatism taking hold in those harassed by officers.

Some cyclists shrugged off the encounters as an inconvenience that comes with living in high-crime neighborhoods.

This is something cops argue in court, often successfully. But nowhere in the Bill of Rights does it say these rights don't need to be respected in areas that criminals frequent.

The Sheriff's Department has defended the biased bike stop program as essential to fighting crime, claiming (unbelievably) that people using bikes for transportation are generally criminals.

Lt. Lorena Rodriguez, a department spokeswoman, said riding a bike allows criminals “to traverse a neighborhood unnoticed, faster and safer than on foot, and additionally makes it easier to avoid police contact. We are not conducting traffic stops of persons obviously engaged in the use of a bicycle for exercise or amusement.”

But if cyclists are generally criminals, the Sheriff's Department sucks at sniffing out criminal activity. Deputies perform a lot of stops. But they don't do much actual crimefighting.

For all the stops and searches, deputies rarely catch criminals. During searches, they find illegal items just 8% of the time, The Times’ analysis shows. Weapons were seized just 164 times — less than half a percent of all searches.

The Department's justification for stopping and searching so many bicyclists doesn't hold up. There's nothing about the end result that suggests targeting cyclists for minor violations is taking dangerous criminals off the street. All it's doing is allowing deputies to engage in fishing expeditions that overwhelmingly target a single demographic. It's far easier than stopping cars, and the county's bike laws help ensure there's always a reason to stop someone, even if issuing fix-it tickets is generally understood by deputies to be largely beside the point. It's an easy bake recipe for rights violations that will rarely be challenged in court, either by criminal defendants or plaintiffs in civil suits.

Filed Under: bike stops, lasd, police, pretextual stops

Yes, Even If You Think Project Veritas Are A Bunch Of Malicious Grifters, FBI Raid Is Concerning

from the press-freedom-matters dept

I am no fan of Project Veritas. They appear to be a group of malicious grifters, deliberately distorting things, presenting them out of context to fit (or make) a narrative. Even so (or perhaps, especially so), we should be extremely concerned about the FBI's recent raid on Project Veritas' founder James O'Keefe and two of his colleagues.

The FBI and DOJ say they're investigating the apparent theft of a diary belonging to Joe Biden's daughter, Ashley, which later ended up in Project Veritas' hands. But, as we've discussed for many years, there are serious 1st Amendment questions involved when the government is raiding the homes of journalists and seizing their computers, phones, and other records. I'm assuming that some of you are going to say that this shouldn't matter because O'Keefe and Veritas aren't "real journalists," and we'll get to that argument later. But the simple fact is that after many years (and multiple administrations lead by both parties) in which the DOJ felt free to collect journalist records, earlier this year, we were told that the DOJ was finally going to no longer sweep up journalist records (though even then it noted that didn't apply in cases where the journalists themselves were targets of a criminal investigation -- as was the case here).

However, unless there's really strong evidence indicating that Project Veritas was involved in the actual theft of the diary, if the organization was merely the recipient of that diary, then these raids raise many, many concerns about violations of press freedoms and the use of law enforcement to intimidate the press.

Many others seem to be similarly concerned, as this is raising a lot of alarm bells for those who work on press freedom issues:

“This is just beyond belief,” said University of Minnesota law professor Jane Kirtley, a former executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. “I’m not a big fan of Project Veritas, but this is just over the top. I hope they get a serious reprimand from the court because I think this is just wrong.”

The ACLU is also quite concerned:

“Project Veritas has engaged in disgraceful deceptions, and reasonable observers might not consider their activities to be journalism at all. Nevertheless, the precedent set in this case could have serious consequences for press freedom. Unless the government had good reason to believe that Project Veritas employees were directly involved in the criminal theft of the diary, it should not have subjected them to invasive searches and seizures. We urge the court to appoint a special master to ensure that law enforcement officers review only those materials that were lawfully seized and that are directly relevant to a legitimate criminal investigation.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists is equally worried:

“While we do not endorse some of the tactics Project Veritas employs, the FBI’s recent raids on the organization’s founder and his associates represent a concerning overreach by law enforcement,” said CPJ U.S. and Canada Program Coordinator Katherine Jacobsen. “The government must provide a clear link between members of Project Veritas and alleged criminal activity before searching their homes for information about source material. Conducting raids without this kind of link sets a dangerous precedent that could allow law enforcement to search and confiscate reporters’ unpublished source material in vague attempts to identify whistleblowers.”

But, yes, as mentioned earlier, I'm sure some people are saying that Project Veritas and James O'Keefe aren't "real" journalists. And, I'm certainly sympathetic to the idea that O'Keefe makes a mockery of actual journalism with his out of context and extremely misleading releases. But, part of having a "freedom of the press" means not allowing the government to determine who is and who is not press. Because that power alone creates massive limits on a free press. If the government can unilaterally decide that certain organizations are not "really" journalists, then that enables them to punish any news organization they want. Think how a Trump administration might use that power against the NY Times or CNN.

It's okay to call out Project Veritas for their ridiculous and misleading reporting. You can personally believe that they are doing dangerous work. But the government cannot unilaterally declare them not to be press in order to raid homes and seize notes -- because if they can, they can do that to any journalist.

Another bit of pushback I heard on this was that mere "receipt of stolen goods" is, itself, a crime, and that somehow makes it okay to raid O'Keefe and his colleagues. Again, though, that would set a hugely dangerous precedent. Remember, the Nixon administration went after the NY Times and the Washington Post for receiving the Pentagon Papers from Daniel Ellsberg. Tons of whistleblowers and leakers hand over documents to journalists that they have no legal right to copy or take (and they may face legal consequences in doing so). But the media who receives those works should not be subject to raids and intimidation from the government. Even if they're a bunch of ridiculous grifters intent on publishing utter nonsense.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, ashley biden, doj, fbi, free speech, james o'keefe, journalism, raids, reporting, source protection
Companies: project veritas

Mexican Businessman Arrested For Using NSO Spyware To Target A Journalist

from the NSO's-long,-international-SEO-nightmare-continues dept

No news is the only good news for Israeli tech company NSO Group. The problem is it's impossible to generate no news when you can't go more than a few days without generating more bad news.

Since the leak of data showing its customers were targeting journalists, activists, religious leaders, and other government officials with powerful malware capable of intercepting cellphone communications, the headlines NSO has racked up range from bad to worse to nightmarish.

Multiple countries are now following up on investigations performed by entities like CitizenLab, performing investigations of their own to determine whether they've been breached by NSO's malware or if government customers have violated rights. The United States has effectively blacklisted the company, forbidding US government agencies from buying its products and US exploit developers from selling to NSO.

One country was host to a large percentage of the numbers on the leaked list of potential NSO Group malware targets: Mexico. 15,000 of the 50,000 phone numbers on the list were located in that country. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mexico is home to the first arrest related to abuse of NSO spyware.

Mexican prosecutors said Monday they have arrested a businessman on charges he used the Pegasus spyware to spy on a journalist.

[...]

A federal official not authorized to be quoted by name said the suspect is Juan Carlos García Rivera, who has been linked to the company Proyectos y Diseños VME and Grupo KBH. He was detained on Nov. 1.

Mexico buys a lot of spyware from NSO. The AP report says the Mexican government spent $61 million on Pegasus licenses (NSO's most popular -- and most powerful -- phone exploit) from 2006 to 2018. That quote was given to the Associated Press in July. It has since been updated.

Last week, the government’s top anti-money laundering investigator said officials from the two previous administrations had spent about $300 million in government money to purchase spyware. But that figure may reflect all spyware and surveillance purchases, or may include yet-unidentified contracts.

Supposedly the Mexican government has kicked the spyware habit. Current president Andrés Manuel López Obrador was elected in 2018 and promised never to use exploits like these. It remains to be seen if that promise has been broken or will be broken in the future. According to the head of the government's Financial Intelligence Unit -- which monitors government financial transactions for evidence of corruption -- "no transactions" related to the purchase of spyware have been detected.

That's reassuring but not nearly as reassuring as a statement from a non-government entity would be, given the Mexican government's long, mostly unsuccessful, battle with internal corruption.

NSO has, of course, responded with another nonsensical non-denial of the facts at hand:

As stated in the past, NSO’s technologies are only sold to vetted and approved government entities, and cannot be operated by private companies or individuals. We regret to see that, over and over again, the company’s name is mentioned in the media in events that has nothing to do with NSO, directly or indirectly.

This certainly looks like the software was "operated" by a private individual. Maybe that first and pretty damn clear impression will change when more facts are in. Just because NSO forbids the use by private individuals doesn't mean private individuals with access to malware are somehow incapable of deploying it. And, just to be pedantic because NSO insists on pedantry, when issuing defensive statements, this report very definitely has something to do with NSO indirectly. Being angry about the endless stream of bad news doesn't make NSO right and everyone else wrong about it's at least tacit involvement with misuse of its products by its customers.

Filed Under: journalism, malware, mexico, spyware, surveillance
Companies: nso group

Is Protecting Copyright More Important Than Saving Lives During The COVID-19 Pandemic?

from the to-hollywood-it-is dept

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked terrible suffering across the world, we are fortunate that we already have several vaccines that have been shown to be highly effective in reducing the number of deaths and hospitalization rates. Discovering vaccines proved easier than expected, but ensuring that everyone – including people in developing countries – has access to them has proved much harder. The main reason for that is an intellectual monopoly: patents. Even though at least two of the main vaccines were developed almost entirely using public funds, which ought by rights to mean that the results are in the public domain, companies have obtained exclusionary patents on them. This has led to calls for a patent waiver of some kind to allow countries to produce their own supplies of medicines, without needing to pay licensing fees.

The proposal from India and South Africa to the World Trade Organization (WTO) does not mention patents at all, but lists instead what the waiver seeks to achieve: "the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID-19". A paper from Sean Flynn, Erica Nkrumah and Luca Schirru points out that works covered by copyright also need a waiver if we are to combat COVID-19 effectively. For example:

Researchers cannot contribute to COVID-19 responses if they cannot access the scientific literature they need to conduct their work. A global survey recently found that about 20% of researchers globally, and over 30% of researchers in South America (where copyright exceptions are the most limited), report that COVID has “completely” altered or halted their work.

Although some publishers did make publications relevant to COVID-19 freely available initially, the number of articles available is diminishing. Similarly, researchers need free access to material covered by copyright in order to carry out text and data mining, which uses computational analysis of large collections of material in order to reveal new insights. In fact:

The [Covid-19] outbreak was discovered by a Canadian text and datamining company, BlueDot, which tracks emerging health threats by analyzing “a variety of information sources, including chomping through 100,000 news reports in 65 languages a day.”

A less obvious problem caused by copyright concerns the labels and inserts that convey vital information about vaccines and drugs:

Even if a competing vaccine or treatment is lawfully produced with respect to patent law, there are opportunities for companies to use copyrights to halt or delay generic marketing. The issue arises because labels and package inserts – which convey information often required by regulators – may be considered protected by copyright in some countries. There is a history of pharmaceutical companies making such claims (ultimately ineffectively) in the U.S. A recent report by WTO and WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization] explained that the practice of using copyrights to block generic production continues in other countries.

In each of these instances copyright is acting as an obstacle to the wider availability and use of vital medical interventions to people around the world. Hindering the ability to offer vaccines and treatments will inevitably lead to avoidable deaths from Covid-19. As well as granting waivers for patents, it's long overdue for the authorities concerned to grant them for key material covered by copyright too. If they don't, people in parts of the world without ready access to vaccines and treatments will have to conclude that saving their lives is regarded as less important than protecting intellectual monopolies.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter, Diaspora, or Mastodon.

Originally posted to the Walled Culture blog.

Filed Under: copyright, covid-19, ip waiver, patents, waiver, wto

Daily Deal: The 2021 Complete Video Production Super Bundle

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

The 2021 Complete Video Production Super Bundle has 10 courses to help you learn all about video production. Aspiring filmmakers, YouTubers, bloggers, and business owners alike can find something to love about this in-depth video production bundle. Video content is fast changing from the future marketing tool to the present, and here you'll learn how to make professional videos on any budget. From the absolute basics, to screenwrighting to the advanced shooting and lighting techniques of the pros, you'll be ready to start making high quality video content. You'll learn how to make amazing videos, whether you use a smartphone, webcam, DSLR, mirrorless, or professional camera. It's on sale for $35.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Filed Under: daily deal