Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle

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

The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle has 6 courses to help you gain the skills needed to become a tech professional. The courses contain hands-on lessons and exam prep for Python MTA, ITIL, CompTIA Cybersecurity, and GDPR certification exams. The bundle is on sale for $29.

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

Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia

from the do-not-pass-go,-do-not-collect-$200 dept

So for years I've noted if you really want to understand why U.S. broadband is so crappy, you should take a long, close look at Frontier Communications in states like West Virginia. For decades the ISP has provided slow and expensive service, routinely failed to upgrade or repair its network, and generally personified the typical bumbling, apathetic, regional monopoly. And its punishment, year after year, has generally been a parade of regulatory favors, tax breaks, and millions in subsidies. At no point do "telecom policy leaders" or politicians ever try to do much differently.

Case in point: Frontier, fresh off of an ugly bankruptcy, numerous AG and FTC lawsuits over repair delays, and repeated subsidy scandals, is positioning itself to nab yet more subsidies from the state of Wisconsin. Frontier is asking the state of for $35 million in additional grants, despite the fact Wisconsin was just one of several states whose AGs recently sued the company for being generally terrible. Folks familiar with the company argue it shouldn't be seeing a single, additional dime in taxpayer resources given fifteen years of scandal:

"I hope the state will seriously consider the track record of companies to understand which ones have a long record of meeting the needs of residents and businesses,” Christopher Mitchell, director of the Community Broadband Networks Initiative, a Minnesota-based think tank supporting communities’ telecommunications efforts, said in an interview with The Badger Project.

"Frankly, Frontier’s record suggests it should not receive a single additional dollar from any government,” he added. “Local companies, communities, and cooperatives have proven to be much better at turning public subsidies into needed networks."

Keep in mind Frontier has been accused of taking state and federal subsidies on several occasions, misleadingly billing the government extra, then basically just shrugging when asked for the money back. To date nobody has done much about any of it. Also keep in mind Frontier routinely lobbies for (and often ghost writes) state laws banning towns and cities from building their own broadband networks. They're also directly responsible for the gutting of state and federal regulatory and consumer protection authority. Facing little real competition and feckless oversight in most states, nothing much changes. By design.

Historically, state politicians and regulators ignore these kinds of problems, because, it should be made clear, they're corrupt. Regional monopolies find it immensely easy to throw a few bucks at state leaders in exchange for just mindless rubber stamping of whatever goal they're interested in (merger approvals, new subsidies, the gutting of consumer protections, tax breaks, zero accountability). That this strategy continually results in terrible, substandard, and expensive service never seems to enter into the picture. It's just rinse, wash, repeat in a long line of states.

The Wisconsin State Public Service Commission is expected to grant or deny Frontier's request by the end of the month. The company is also first in line to grab new federal broadband funding from the Biden FCC. It will be curious to see if just a parade of unprecedented scandal reduces Frontier's ability to have millions in additional taxpayer money thrown at it in the slightest. My guess is it doesn't. At all.

There are two, indisputable reasons U.S. broadband generally sucks: regional monopolization and the corruption that protects it. But when you see news articles, regulators, many think tankers, or politicians talking about broadband, notice how many are capable of even clearly acknowledging that fact, much less genuinely interested in actually doing anything about it.

Filed Under: broadband, competition, dsl, fcc, subsidies, telecom, upgrades, west virginia, wisconsin
Companies: frontier

Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well

from the oooooh-get-him dept

It takes a special kind of hubris to appropriate music and lyrics not just from another artist, but another cultural genre of artists, and then threaten someone else for "stealing" what you've "stolen". Meet Barry Mann. If that name doesn't sound terribly familiar to you, fear not, as he is known for the 1961 hit song Who Put The Bomp? and other songs from decades ago. And if that song title doesn't sound familiar, you've almost certainly heard the song. To jog your memory, it includes such made up words as "ramalama ding dong". See, those are called vocables: made up syllables used to effectuate rhythmic form rather than meaning. You can listen to the song below to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

"The Mann", which is what I'll be calling him from here on out, is still kicking at 82 and apparently is learning a new hobby: threatening other artists with copyright claims. He and/or his legal representatives apparently sent a cease and desist notice to Le Tigre, a feminist punk band, over a song called Decepticon. See, Decepticon takes a couple of lyrics found in The Mann's song and repurposes them to become a feminist anthem. For that and one additional reason that we'll get into later, Le Tigre filed suit for declaratory relief of The Mann's copyright infringement claim. Here is Decepticon so you can go hear for yourself just how copyright-infringe-y this all isn't.

Between the suit and the song itself, you should notice a number of things. First off, you may be thinking to yourself that this song sounds decidedly retro for punk music. That's because the song came out twenty years ago and has long been Le Tigre's most famous song. Why a lawsuit is only being filed now is an open question. In addition, the use of the lyrics is minimal and the song itself is nothing remotely like The Mann's song.

Additionally, even if Defendants had a legitimate claim to ownership of the small portion of Bomp lyrics at issue, they nonetheless have no copyright infringement claim against Le Tigre or its licensees because Le Tigre’s transformative use of those lyrics in Deceptacon is an emblematic case of fair use under Section 107 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 107.

Transformative use? Let's get into that. You may also have noticed that the lyrics are actually slightly different. For instance, the lyric to start the song is no longer "who put the bomp", it's "who took the bomp".

Deceptacon’s reference to and inversion of the Bomp lyrics at issue delivers a stinging indictment and parody of Bomp, which is clear from a comparison of the songs’ lyrics and sharply contrasting musical styles, as critics have noted over the decades. Bomp, written from a man’s perspective, begins with the statement: “I’d like to thank the guy who wrote the song that made my baby fall in love with me.” Bomp’s singer asks, “Who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?” and “Who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?” Deceptacon, by contrast, is a feminist anthem that begins with the proposition that music “is sucking my heart out of my mind” and continues to ask, “Who took the bomp from the bomp-a-lomp-a-lomp?” and “Who took the ram from the rama-lama-ding-dong?” Thus, Le Tigre’s use of the lyrics that appear in Bomp instills those lyrics with a new meaning that is directly at odds with and a clear criticism of the message in Bomp, which is precisely the sort of fair use that Section 107 of the Copyright Act is designed to protect.

But parody and criticism of what? Well, there certainly is the feminist angle to it, yes, and Le Tigre is well known for creating that sort of stinging lyrics within its songs. But not just the feminist critique. Remember the change from "put" to "took"? Well...

The Bomp lyrics putatively at issue are mainly comprised of song titles and non-lexical vocables (nonsense syllables used in music). But Mr. Mann did not create these vocables or song titles; rather, it appears that Mr. Mann and his cowriter copied them from Black doo-wop groups active during the late 1950s and early 1960s. Specifically, it appears that Mr. Mann took “bomp-bah-bomp-bah-bomp” from The Marcels’ distinctive version of “Blue Moon,” which sold over a million copies, and “rama lama ding dong” from the Edsels’ then-popular “Rama Lama Ding Dong.” In short, the Bomp lyrics at issue are not original to Mr. Mann, and Defendants have no legitimate copyright claim in them.

And that is how this all comes full circle, in a way. The Mann threatened a punk feminist group over a song it created with lyrics designed to specifically criticize how he appropriated those lyrics from black doo-wop groups in the 60s. Like I said, that takes a nearly impressive amount of hubris.

As far as copyright cases go, this should be an easy one for the courts.

Filed Under: barry mann, bomp, copyright, decepticon, fair use, le tigre, punk, ramalama ding dong, statute of limitations, transformative

Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites

from the this-is-why-procedural-outs-are-important dept

More than two years ago we wrote about a truly bizarre ruling in a truly bizarre copyright lawsuit against Cloudflare. As you (perhaps?) know, Cloudflare is a popular CDN provider, helping websites (including Techdirt) provide better access to users while helping to mitigate things like denial of service attacks. In this case, the plaintiffs, Mon Cheri Bridals -- a maker of bridal dresses -- sued Cloudflare because websites out there were selling counterfeit dresses. If you know anything about copyright (and counterfeiting) law, you should be scratching your head. Counterfeiting is not about copyright. It's about trademark. But the dress company (for reasons I still don't understand), made the stretchiest of stretchy arguments to say that (1) the counterfeit sellers were posting images of the dresses, and (2) those images were protected by a copyright held by the dress maker, and (3) because the counterfeiting sites posting the allegedly copyright infringing photos used Cloudflare for CDN (not hosting) services, that somehow makes them contributory liable for the copyright infringement.

Even worse, the complaint itself was extremely confused about the DMCA and how it works with regards to the DMCA 512 safe harbors. Different companies are treated differently under 512, and Section (b) companies for "system caching" (which is what CDNs do) are treated differently under the law than Section (c) hosting companies. However, the whole "notice and takedown" aspect of the law only applies to Section (c) type companies. But the lawsuit simply ignored that and assumed that Cloudflare should be a (c) company, rather than a (b).

And, astoundingly, as we wrote about two years ago, the judge refused to dismiss the case, but let it move forward past the motion to dismiss stage -- meaning that it went through some very expensive discovery and other efforts before finally getting to the summary judgment stage, and now more than two years later, the judge granted dismissal on summary judgment. And, kinda like his refusal to dismiss, the opinion is kinda short and doesn't get into much in the way of detail. But at least this time it gets it right.

The plaintiffs have not presented evidence from which a jury could conclude that Cloudflare’s performance-improvement services materially contribute to copyright infringement. The plaintiffs’ only evidence of the effects of these services is promotional material from Cloudflare’s website touting the benefits of its services. These general statements do not speak to the effects of Cloudflare on the direct infringement at issue here. For example, the plaintiffs have not offered any evidence that faster load times (assuming they were faster) would be likely to lead to significantly more infringement than would occur without Cloudflare. Without such evidence, no reasonable jury could find that Cloudflare “significantly magnif[ies]” the underlying infringement. Amazon.com, Inc., 508 F.3d at 1172. Nor are Cloudflare’s services an “essential step in the infringement process.” Louis Vuitton Malletier, 658 F.3d at 944. If Cloudflare were to remove the infringing material from its cache, the copyrighted image would still be visible to the user; removing material from a cache without removing it from the hosting server would not prevent the direct infringement from occurring.

Cloudflare’s security services also do not materially contribute to infringement. From the perspective of a user accessing the infringing websites, these services make no difference. Cloudflare’s security services do impact the ability of third parties to identify a website’s hosting provider and the IP address of the server on which it resides. If Cloudflare’s provision of these services made it more difficult for a third party to report incidents of infringement to the web host as part of an effort to get the underlying content taken down, perhaps it could be liable for contributory infringement. But here, the parties agree that Cloudflare informs complainants of the identity of the host in response to receiving a copyright complaint, in addition to forwarding the complaint along to the host provider.

This is the correct ruling, but it should have come two years ago at the motion to dismiss stage.

Indeed, despite not being a Section 230 case, this is yet another example of why Section 230's procedural benefits are so important. Perhaps one reason why people don't get this is that they don't understand just how much more expensive a lawsuit gets after a motion to dismiss, but it's a massive shift. A motion to dismiss may run in the 100s of thousands dollars range (depending on a variety of factors). But if you get past that and have to go to discovery, you're now talking in the millions before you get a ruling on summary judgment. It's a big difference and a massive cost for companies (especially smaller ones). A cost that can completely destroy smaller companies -- for a lawsuit that had no chance at all from the beginning.

Filed Under: cdn, copyright, counterfeiting, dmca, dmca 512, safe harbors, summary judgment
Companies: cloudflare, mon cheri bridals

Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones

from the whoops-a-daisy dept

Wireless subscribers of Verizon's Visible prepaid service received a rude awakening after hackers compromised their account, then ordered expensive new iPhones on their dime. Last week a company statement indicated that "threat actors were able to access username/passwords from outside sources," then utilize that access to login to Visible customer accounts. Hacked users say the attackers then utilized that access to order expensive kit, and, initially, getting Visible to do anything about it was a challenge:

The company seemed to initially claim this was an instance of "credential stuffing," or hackers obtaining login information obtained from other hacks or breaches of other services, then testing those logins in as many services as they can find. But experts doubted that claim, noting that the company had been complaining about issues with its chat services before acknowledging the hack. More specifically, Visible support reps were telling users that ambiguous "technical issues" had left it incapable of making any changes to customer accounts.

There are also questions about when the company knew about the hacks, with it initially trying to claim last week that the hack and subsequent iPhone orders were an ordinary system error:

Although Visible made a public statement yesterday, the company first acknowledged the issue on Twitter on October 8. At the time, Visible provided a vague reason: order confirmation emails erroneously sent out by the company.

"We're sorry for any confusion this may have caused! There was an error where this email was sent to members, please disregard it," the company told a customer.

Again, this is where just a basic, internet-era privacy law requiring greater transparency (and perhaps a little more accountability for industries and executives that not only keep failing to secure user data, but clearly aren't great about being honest with their users) would come in kind of handy. Instead we keep just looking at the problem and shrugging because purportedly drafting competent privacy laws with any competency is deemed impossible, letting the repercussions pile up.

Filed Under: breach, data breach, hack, prepaid service, visible
Companies: verizon

Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course

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

The MacOS 11 Course is here to help with your understanding of macOS's core functionality. You'll learn how to configure key services, perform basic troubleshooting, and support multiple users with essential macOS capabilities. This course is great for help desk professionals, technical coordinators, or power users who support macOS users and manage networks. It's on sale for $30.

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

Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit

from the this-isn't-making-anything-any-better dept

People suing Twitter and Facebook for acts of violence committed by terrorists have yet to talk a court into agreeing with their arguments. Utilizing federal anti-terrorism laws as a way to circumvent discussion of First Amendment and Section 230 issues has worked to a certain extent. It may not have handed any wins to plaintiffs, but it has prevented precedent that would work against these clients (and their law firms -- both of them) when attempting to define "insanity" through repeated failure.

Via Eric Goldman comes another loss in court for plaintiffs attempting to sue social media companies over an act of terrorism, in this case the mass shooting in an Orlando, Florida nightclub that appears to have no ties to any organized terrorist group.

Despite being given multiple attempts to convert the complaint into something actionable, the plaintiffs failed to do so. This is largely because social media companies aren't even indirectly responsible for acts of terrorism. More specifically in this case, the Pulse Nightclub shooting wasn't even, legally speaking, an act of international terrorism. That means there's no cause of action under the plaintiffs' legal vehicle of choice, the Anti-Terrorism Act.

From the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals decision [PDF]:

We are deeply saddened by the deaths and injuries caused by Mr. Mateen’s rampage, but we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs failed to make out a plausible claim that the Pulse massacre was an act of “international terrorism” as that term is defined in the ATA [Anti-Terrorism Act]. And without such an act of “international terrorism,” the social media companies—no matter what we may think of their alleged conduct—cannot be liable for aiding and abetting under the ATA.

The shooter was an American citizen. He "self-radicalized" with the alleged assistance of social media platforms. He pledged allegiance to ISIS while barricading himself with hostages following the shooting. ISIS arrived shortly thereafter to claim it supported the shooting and the shooter. But there's nothing "international" about this. And the Appeals Court isn't willing to read the ATA as expansively as the plaintiffs choose to.

The Pulse shooting… did not transcend national boundaries in terms of the persons it was “intended to intimidate or coerce.” The plausible inference from the plaintiffs’ allegations is that a mass shooting on United States soil is meant to terrorize American citizens and residents. To come to the contrary conclusion we would have to say (or infer) that any act of domestic terrorism, anywhere in the world, is meant to intimidate or coerce all of humankind. And if that were the case, we doubt that Congress would have included this limiting language in the ATA.

Because these claims fail to carry the lawsuit, the court takes no note of the Section 230 and First Amendment implications. That's a bit unfortunate because dismissing lawsuits under ATA and state law claims hasn't stopped these law firms and lawyers from filing multiple, nearly identical lawsuits attempting to hold social media companies directly responsible for violent acts committed by their users.

At some point, these issues may be addressed at the federal court level. But today is not that day. And if people still believe this is indicative of Section 230's faults, they should apprise themselves of the unavoidable fact that Section 230 does not immunize social media companies from allegations of federal law violations. Yes, it's almost impossible to sue terrorists for violent acts, but suing social media platforms won't actually result in justice, either.

Filed Under: 11th circuit, blame, liability, section 230, social media, terrorism