Officer Claims Sheriff's Office Told Him To Play Copyrighted Music To Shut Down Citizens' Recordings

from the future-is-Denis-Leary's-'Asshole'-on-repeat-forever dept

The new hotness for law enforcement is trying to end the careers of police accountability activists. When approached by people filming them, officers from multiple law enforcement agencies have begun playing the zero-accountability hits, hoping that notoriously litigious artists like Taylor Swift and the Beatles will join forces to keep these recordings from being uploaded to social media sites.

The thought process is so simple a cop could understand it. When someone starts recording or livestreaming, crank up some music in hopes the copyright bots will recognize the track and shut the whole thing down. Even if it can't terminate a livestream, it might terminate a few pesky accounts with enough copyright strikes.

One law enforcement officer straight up admitted to the people filming him that he was playing music in hopes of keeping the video from making it past YouTube's copyright cops, much to the eventual dismay of his fellow officers. The Alameda County Sheriff's Department has learned from this Streisanding, and has since made it official policy to forbid the playing of copyrighted content for the sole purpose of thwarting the recording of officers by members of the public.

Welcome to the flipside. Matthew Gault and Motherboard have uncovered a document written by an officer who deployed the same tactic claiming his employer specifically directed him to engage in this IP-abusing effort.

On February 25, an activist running the YouTube account Accountability Angel attempted to enter the LaSalle County Sheriff's office in Ottawa, Illinois. James Knoblauch blocked her approach, ignored her questions, took out his phone, turned on Blake Shelton’s “Nobody But You,” and cranked up the volume.

According to an incident report obtained by Motherboard via a Freedom of Information Act request, someone told Knoblauch to turn on the music.

The recording of this incident can be seen here. And the report, written by Knoblauch, can be seen here [PDF]. This confirms previous reporting on the incident by Motherboard, which ran under the headline "It Sure Looks Like This Cop Played Country Music to Avoid Being Filmed."

In the video, James Knoblauch, who had been chief of police in nearby Oglesby until he retired (after previously being removed from office) last year, approaches the camera. Angel asks why she is not being allowed into the building with her phone.

But instead of answering, Knoblauch silently reaches into his jacket pocket, pulls out his phone, and starts swiping. Moments later, we hear music playing. He boosts the volume, just in time for us to hear the opening strains of country star Blake Shelton’s “Nobody But You” featuring Gwen Stefani

Here's what the report says [all spelling/grammatical errors in the original]:

Upon arrival, I observed a female, Angel Famer who I've had prior dealings with. At this time, I observed Angel holding up a selfie stick with a cell phone attached to it. It appeared that she was video recording from the vestibule area.

I then entered the vestibule area and stood in front of Angel and advised her that cell phones were not allowed in the building and that she would need to take her cell phone out to her vehicle or rent a locker at the jail.

As I was recently advised, I then turned on some music. At this time Angel became belligerent to me about the music. [...] I continued to stand in the vestibule area in from of her. Angel continued to say I was denying her right and that I was an oath breaker. Angel continued to be belligerent towards me with comments such as, shut your fucking music off and called me "no balls."

So, that's the claim made by James "No Balls" Knoblauch, former Oglesby (Illinois) police chief and current court officer employed by the LaSalle County Sheriff's Office. Did his employer actually tell him to thwart accountability by misusing the intellectual property of others? Knoblauch had better hope so, since it's right there in black and white on an official report. The Sheriff's Office has refused to comment on the incident, which suggests it at least implicitly supports his actions. But it will probably take another set of public records requests to uncover the truth.

Until then, we can assume Knoblauch is aware of similar shitty tactics deployed by cops elsewhere in the country. What he doesn't seem to be aware of is the fact that it hasn't worked yet. All this shows is Knoblauch is like those other officers: someone who thinks the people should continue to cut paychecks for officers who respond to accountability efforts with open hostility.

Filed Under: copyright, dmca, illinois, james knoblauch, lasalle county, lasalle county sheriff, ottawa, police

Florida Presents Its Laughable Appeal For Its Unconstitutional Social Media Content Moderation Law

from the disney-exempt! dept

Now that Texas has signed its unconstitutional social media content moderation bill into law, the action shifts back to Florida's similar law that was already declared unconstitutional in an easy decision by the district court. Florida has filed its opening brief in its appeal before the 11th Circuit and... it's bad. I mean, really, really bad. Embarrassingly bad. I mean, this isn't a huge surprise since their arguments in the district court were also bad. But now that they've had a judge smack them down fairly completely, including in terribly embarrassing oral arguments, you'd think that maybe someone would think to try to lawyer better? Though, I guess, you play with the hand your dealt, and Florida gave its lawyers an unconstitutionally bad hand.

Still, I'd expect at least marginally better lawyering than the kind commonly found on Twitter or in our comments. It starts out bad and gets worse. First off, it claims that it's proven that social media platforms "arbitrarily discriminate against disfavored speakers" and uses a really bad example.

The record in this appeal leaves no question that social media platforms arbitrarily discriminate against disfavored speakers, including speakers in Florida. The record is replete with unrebutted examples of platforms suppressing user content for arbitrary reasons. E.g., App.891 (Doc.106-1 at 802) (Facebook censoring The Babylon Bee, a Florida-based media company, for obviously satirical content). When caught, platforms frequently cast these decisions off as “mistakes.” E.g., App.1693 (Doc.106-5 at 201). But systematic examinations show that platforms apply their content standards differently to content and speakers that express different views but are otherwise similarly situated, all while publicly claiming to apply those standards fairly. See App.999, 1007, 1183 (Doc.106-2 at 14, 22; Doc.106-3 at 17). There are many examples in the Appendix, and even that list is hardly exhaustive.

Except that at scale, tons of mistakes are made, so yes, many of these are mistakes. And others may not be, but it is up to the platform to determine who breaks the rules. But, much more importantly, it is totally within the right of private companies to moderate how they see fit and interpret their own terms of service. So even if there were proof of "discrimination" here (and there is not), it's not against the law.

From there it just gets silly:

Undoubtedly, social media is “the modern public square.” Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730, 1737 (2017). In S.B. 7072 (the “Act”)...

Generally speaking, citing Packingham is a demonstration for support of your plan to force private actors to host speech shows you have totally misunderstood Packingham and are either too ignorant or too disingenuous to take seriously. Packingham is about preventing the government from passing laws that remove full internet access from people. It does not mean that any private company has to provide access to anyone.

The argument that Florida's law is not pre-empted by Section 230 is nonsense. Section 230 is clear that no state law can contradict it and do anything to put liability on private website operators (or users) regarding the actions of their users. But that's exactly what Florida's law does.

As the District Court tacitly acknowledged, the only part of that statute that could possibly preempt the Act is Section 230(c)(2). But that provision serves only to absolve platforms of liability when they remove in good faith content that is “objectionable” within the meaning of Section 230(c)(2). That leaves myriad ways in which the Act can apply consistently with Section 230(c)(2). For example, the Act and Section 230 can peacefully coexist when a social media platform fails to act in “good faith,” when the Act does not regulate the removal or restriction of content, or when a platform removes unobjectionable material.

This is disingenuous to downright wrong, and completely ignores the interplay between 230(c)(1) and 230(c)(2) and, notably, the fact that nearly every lawsuit regarding moderation has said that (c)(1) protects all moderation choices, whether or not they are "good faith." And Section 230 clearly also pre-empts any attempt by a state to ignore moderation that is protect by (c)(1). Florida's lawyers just ignore this. Which is kind of stunning. It's not like the lawyers for NetChoice and CCIA are going to ignore it too. And they can point to dozens upon dozens of cases that prove Florida wrong.

The 1st Amendment argument is even worse:

Plaintiffs are also unlikely to succeed on their claim that the Act violates the First Amendment on its face. Most of the Act is directed at ensuring that social media platforms host content in a transparent fashion. For example, the Act requires non-controversial, factual disclosures, and disclosure requirements have long coexisted with the First Amendment. Even the portions of the Act that regulate the manner in which platforms host speech are consistent with the First Amendment. When properly analyzed separately from the Act’s other provisions—and from the extraneous legislative statements on which the District Court primarily relied—these requirements parallel other hosting regulations that the Supreme Court has held are consistent with the First Amendment. E.g., Rumsfeld v. FAIR, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 63 (2006). The Act’s hosting regulations prevent the platforms from silencing others. They leave platforms free to speak for themselves, create no risk that a user’s speech will be mistakenly attributed to the platforms, and intrude on no unified speech product of any platform. These requirements are little different from traditional regulation of common carriers that has long been thought consistent with the First Amendment.

The reliance on Rumsfeld v. FAIR is quite silly, and the few people who have brought it up also tend to look quite silly. This is not even remotely similar to the Rumsfeld situation, which was very narrow and very specific and cannot be extended to apply to an entire social media platform. And to just sort of toss in the idea that social media is a common carrier -- when they do not meet (at all) the classification of a common carrier, and have never been deemed a common carrier -- is just boldly stupid.

There's more, of course, but those are the basics. You never know how a court is going to decide -- and perhaps you get a confused and persuadable judge (there are, unfortunately, a few of those out there). But, this is really weak and seems unlikely to stand.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, common carrier, content moderation, florida, free speech, packingham, pruneyard, public square, section 230, social media

Daily Deal: The Complete 2021 Learn Linux Bundle

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

The Complete 2020 Learn Linux Bundle has 12 courses to help you learn Linux OS concepts and processes. You'll start with an introduction to Linux and progress to more advanced topics like shell scripting, data encryption, supporting virtual machines, and more. Other courses cover Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 (RHEL 8), virtualizing Linux OS using Docker, AWS, and Azure, how to build and manage an enterprise Linux infrastructure, and much more. It's on sale for $59.

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

Malwarebytes Conclusion Shows Section 230's Best Feature: Killing Dumb Cases Before They Waste Everyone's Time And Money

from the 230's-procedural-benefits dept

A few years ago, Professor Eric Goldman wrote an important paper, explaining how Section 230 is better than the 1st Amendment. The key part of the argument is that if you treat Section 230 as a rule of civil procedure that kicks out frivolous and wasteful cases quickly, you realize how important it is.

Last month, a federal district court in California dismissed Enigma Software's high profile lawsuit against Malwarebytes. You may have heard about this case. We've been covering it for years, and it even got some (dubious) attention at the Supreme Court, regarding Section 230. Enigma didn't like that Malwarebytes (and others) found Enigma's "SpyHunter" software to be sketchy itself and started suing. Malwarebytes initially won on Section 230 grounds, pointing out that its opinions on what is and what is not spyware is a moderation choice -- in this case protected by Section 230's rarely used (c)(2)'s immunity for content that the provider deems "otherwise objectionable."

Unfortunately, the 9th Circuit reversed that ruling with a very weird opinion that seemed to contradict its own previous precedent. In that ruling, the 9th Circuit carved a new hole in (c)(2) arguing that you could lose 230 protections if there was an argument that the decision to block content (or call something spyware) was done "for anticompetitive reasons." From the ruling:

We hold that the phrase “otherwise objectionable” does not include software that the provider finds objectionable for anticompetitive reasons.

This ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court who declined to hear the case, though allowing Justice Clarence Thomas to spew some unfettered unbriefed nonsense about Section 230.

Either way, that sent the case all the way back to the district court... where it was dismissed anyway because calling something spyware is protected opinion.

Like in Asurvio LP, Enigma has not pleaded that Malwarebytes’ alleged labels are verifiably false rather than just subjective opinions. Enigma’s allegations that users view statements categorizing Enigma’s programs and domains as “malicious,” “threats,” and PUPs as statements of fact rather than subjective opinions are not supported by the facts presented. The allegations ignore that users of Malwarebytes are aware of why it opines that a given software program may be a PUP based on Malwarebytes’ disclosed criteria and can choose to quarantine or un-quarantine the detected program.

In other words, after all this nonsense and back and forth over Section 230, years later, Malwarebytes still wins the case because the 1st Amendment protects its opinions.

This is similar to another famous 9th Circuit ruling on 230 from a while back: the Roommates.com case. In that case, the court ruled that Section 230 did not protect Roommates.com for content it places in a pulldown menu (that users used to select roommate preferences), but in the end (many years later) Roommates.com still won the case because the 1st Amendment protected it.

Both of these cases demonstrate two very important things: first, most of what people complain about regarding Section 230 is actually protected by the 1st Amendment, so even if we got rid of Section 230, the 1st Amendment would still enable websites to moderate how they see fit. But, much more importantly, both of those cases demonstrate the procedural benefits of Section 230, in that they enable these kinds of cases to be dismissed quickly and relatively inexpensively, rather than having to go through a years long process. In short, Section 230's civil procedure benefits are that they get frivolous cases tossed out of court much more quickly, and at less expense. And that's important, since so many of these cases are, in some form or another, SLAPP suits, designed to pressure companies not to moderate certain content.

Filed Under: 1st amendment, content moderation, free speech, malware, moderation, opinion, section 230, spam
Companies: enigma software, malwarebytes

COVID Drove A Big Jump In Community Broadband Networks

from the build-it-and-they-will-come dept

For twenty-five years now, U.S. broadband has been painfully mediocre in nearly every metric that matters thanks to regulatory capture (read: corruption) and limited competition. With the occasional exception, the U.S. policy solution to this problem has been to kiss the ass of regional telecom monopolies like AT&T and Comcast, throw billions of dollars at these companies for networks that they repeatedly fail to complete, then stand around with a dumb look on our collective faces wondering why we still don't have affordable, widely available, next-generation broadband access.

But as COVID arrived, it brought with it a renewed focus on the problem, brought into stark relief by images of kids having to huddle in the dirt outside of Taco Bell just to attend class. And while these images did drive a lot of important changes -- like a temporary $50 broadband discount for low-income Americans, and the looming $65 billion infrastructure plan (assuming it passes) -- most of these solutions still didn't really target the real reason U.S. broadband is so painfully mediocre: regional monopolization and the state and federal corruption that protects it.

Frustrated by 25 years of this cycle, local communities all over the U.S. keep taking things into their own hands. Data this week complied by the Institute For Local Self Reliance indicates that the number of community broadband networks jumped significantly over the last year, thanks largely due to COVID related annoyance at inadequate broadband:

"When the COVID pandemic shut down our workplaces, schools, and settings for social interaction, it opened the eyes of millions of Americans to the critical importance of affordable access to the Internet,” (Jim) Baller said. "Congress and many states have responded with funding for initiatives to ensure that no Americans are left behind in obtaining access to at least a minimum level of broadband Internet access."

Whether it's a local cooperative, an ISP built on the back of the locally-owned utility, or a government-backed broadband network built from scratch, studies suggest such networks often deliver faster, better service than traditional large cable and phone companies. The revenue made from these networks is also directed back into the local community, and the folks running such networks are more directly accountable to the public because they actually live in the communities they serve. The movement is extremely popular and it's bipartisan.

The benefits of community broadband have been apparent for a while. While not some mystical panacea, it's a local, grass roots reaction to private sector failure that not only provides locals with better broadband, it prompts all too comfortable regional monopolies like Comcast to actually try harder.

Giant regional monopolies (and the think tanks, consultants, and politicians paid to love them) can't admit there's any market failure at all. They also certainly don't want regional communities eroding plump revenues of their clients. So they've taken to demonizing such efforts at every possible opportunity using bunk, cherry picked data and empty fear mongering. When that doesn't work they've literally been able to buy laws in roughly 20 states that strip local infrastructure authority away from the voters:

"Unnerved by the trend, U.S. broadband giants have spent decades lobbying for state barriers to community broadband. According to a new report released by the Coalition for Local Internet Choice (CLIC), 20 states have passed laws limiting community broadband, frequently ghost written by regional telecom monopolies hoping to avoid having to try harder.

Mitchell and ILSR peg the total number of such bills as closer to 17, after Arkansas and Washington loosened their restrictions earlier this year.

When you look around and listen to how news outlets or politicians (in both parties) talk about expensive, slow, spotty broadband, notice the bizarre way most avoid acknowledging the real cause of the problem: unchecked monopoly power and state and federal corruption. There's an all-pervasive DC fear of upsetting deep-pocketed campaign contributions from loyal, patriotic allies bone grafted to our intelligence gathering and first responder networks. Government doesn't want to hold telecom giants because they're effectively part of government and part of a longstanding, ongoing grift.

So instead you get this incredible nebulous, vague narrative among policy leaders and the press that talks about the "digital divide" as if it's just this causation free thing that dropped out of the sky one Thursday. A problem that can only be fixed by throwing billions of more dollars in tax breaks, subsidies, and regulatory favors at regional telecom monopolies. And despite COVID clearly and painfully showing us all how this approach isn't really working and hasn't worked for decades, rampant state and federal corruption ensures any real change in this dynamic is hard to come by.

Filed Under: broadband, community networks, competition, covid

GAO's Second Report On Facial Recognition Tech Provides More Details On Federal Use Of Clearview's Unvetted AI

from the still-greater-than-zero-agencies,-unfortunately dept

A couple of months ago, the Government Accountability Office completed the first pass of its review of federal use of facial recognition technology. It found a lot to be concerned about, including the fact that agencies were using unproven tech (like Clearview's ethical nightmare of a product) and doing very little to ensure the tech was used responsibly.

Some agencies appeared to have no internal oversight of facial recognition tech use, leading to agencies first telling the GAO no one was using the tech, only to update that answer to "more than 1,000 searches" when they had finished doing their first pass at due diligence.

A more complete report [PDF] has been released by the GAO, which includes answers to several questions asked of federal agencies using the tech. Unfortunately, it confirms that many agencies are bypassing what little internal controls are in place by asking state and local agencies to run searches for them. DHS entities (CBP, ICE) did the most freelancing using downstream (governmentally-speaking) databases and tech.

For whatever reason, CBP and ICE (which have access to their own tech) are using agencies in Ohio, Nebraska, Michigan, Kansas, and Missouri (among others) to run searches for criminal suspects and to "support operations." A whole lot of non-border states are allowing agencies to bypass internal restrictions on use of the tech.

And there's a whole lot of Clearview use. Too much, in fact, considering the number of agencies using this highly questionable product exceeds zero.

The US Air Force says it engaged in an "operational pilot" beginning in June 2020, utilizing Clearview to run searches on biometric information gathered with "mobile biometric devices, including phones."

The Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services also apparently used Clearview. The report says the HHS OIG "conducted an evaluation of the system in an attempt to identify unknown subjects of a criminal investigation." Experimentation, but with the added bonus of possibly infringing on an innocent person's life and liberty!

Also on the list are CBP, ICE, and US Secret Service. ICE appears to be the only agency actually purchasing Clearview licenses, spending a total of $214,000 in 2020. The CBP, however, is getting its Clearview for free, utilizing the New York State Intelligence Center's access to run searches. The Secret Service gave Clearview a test drive in 2019 but decided it wasn't worth buying.

The Department of the Interior says it has both stopped and started using Clearview. Under "Accessed commercial FRT [facial recognition technology] system, the DOI claims:

Interior uses Clearview AI to verify the identity of an individual involved in a crime and research information on a person of interest. Interior may submit photos (e.g., surveillance photos) for matching against the Clearview AI’s repository of facial images from open sources. U.S. Park Police reported it stopped using Clearview AI as of June 2020.

But under "New access to commercial FRT system," the DOI states:

Interior reported its U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began using a trial version of Clearview AI in May 2020, and purchased an annual subscription in June 2020.

The DOI is both a current and former customer, depending on which component you speak to, apparently.

The DOJ is an apparent believer in the power of Clearview, providing access to the ATF, DEA, FBI, and US Marshals Service. But there must be a lot of sharing going on, because the DOJ only purchased $9,000-worth of licenses.

Interestingly, the DOJ also notes it received an upgrade from Axon, which provides body-worn cameras. Axon has apparently added a new feature to its product: "Facial Detection." Unlike facial recognition, the product does not search for faces to run against a biometric database. Instead, the system "reviews footage" to detect faces, which can then be marked for redaction.

This FRT-related expenditure is also interesting, suggesting the DOJ may actually be trying to quantify the effectiveness of body cameras when it comes to deterring officer misconduct.

DOJ reported that it awarded an $836,000 grant to the Police Foundation for the development of techniques to automate analysis of body worn camera audio and video data of police and community interactions. In particular, these techniques could (1) allow an evaluation of officers’ adherence to principles of procedural justice and (2) validate the ratings generated by the automated process using a randomized control trial comparing software ratings of videos to evaluations performed by human raters under conditions of high and low procedural justice.

Finally, there's this unnecessarily coy statement by the IRS about its use of commercial facial recognition systems.

A third-party vendor performed facial recognition searches on behalf of the IRS for domestic law enforcement purposes. Additional details on the search are sensitive.

Whatever. It's probably Clearview. And if it isn't, it probably will be at some point in the near future, given federal agencies' apparent comfort with deploying unproven, unvetted tech during criminal investigations.

The report is probably the most comprehensive account of facial recognition tech by the federal government we have to work with at the moment. It shows there's a lot of it being used, but it hasn't become completely pervasive. Yet. Most agencies use the tech to do nothing more than identify employees and prevent unauthorized access to sensitive areas. Some agencies are digging into the tech itself in hopes of improving it. But far too many are still using a product which has been marketed with false statements and has yet to have its accuracy tested by independent researchers. That's a huge problem, and, while it's not up to the GAO to fix it, the report should at least make legislators aware of an issue that needs to be addressed.

Filed Under: doi, doj, facial recognition, gao
Companies: clearview

Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt

from the word-on-the-street dept

This week, That One Guy dominated the leaderboards with three out of four spots — the top two comments for insightful, and the first place winner for funny. In both places on the insightful side, it's his comments on our post about GoDaddy banning the Texas abortion snitch site, starting with this response to the perennial observation that advocates of the "unborn" don't seem to care much about the born:

A quote I ran across in a youtube comment section of all places sums it up nicely I'd say.

“The unborn are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; chy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn…

You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.

Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

— Dr. Dave Barnhart, Christian Minister

In second place, it's a comment about the fact that Epik also banned the site:

Bloody hell, you know you've really gone above and beyond in being horrible when the hosting service of Gab and Parler says they want nothing to do with you.

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with a comment from Stephen T. Stone responding to someone who painted an bizarre caricature of people who rightly oppose the Texas law:

"you're okay with demonizing any attempt to present alternatives to abortion?"

Anti-choice/pro–forced birthing lawmakers (who are largely conservative) seem content with demonetizing or banning comprehensive sex education and affordable birth control/contraception, both of which are proven to reduce abortion rates. What other alternatives do you believe will reduce abortion rates without legally forcing women to give up their bodily autonomy?

"any information about it that isn't flattering to the practice?"

How about we talk about information that isn’t flattering to the anti-choice crowd⁠—like the fact that the so-called fetal heartbeat on which laws/bills like the Texas bullshit isn’t actually a heartbeat at all? How about you address the fact that, at the six-week cutoff period outlined in the Texas law, many women don’t even know they’re pregnant? Perhaps we can discuss Republican lawmakers have done everything possible to destroy the social safety net and depress wages such that a woman who isn’t wealthy could have serious problems making ends meet and thus raising a healthy child that she may not have wanted in the first place but was legally forced to carry to term. Maybe you’d like to explore the fact that the Texas law makes no exceptions for rape/incest, which literally means a rapist in Texas has a viable reproduction strategy for as long as he isn’t caught.

Let’s have those discussions first. Then we can get to any questions you might have.

Next, it's a comment from anonymous on our post about the trial of Backpage's founders:

A lot of information that has come out since the push for SESTA/FOSTA has made it clear that they were using "sex trafficking" interchangeably for "prostitution."

Also, it was clearly a vehicle for many politician's careers, particularly Kamala Harris in 2016 and the democrats in 2018 who were courting progressives at the time. Although, the democrats still havent figured out that the progessives fully support legalized sex work. Just one more example of how the democratic party is actually far right of center.

Who can forget Kamala Harris's speech as Attorney General of California laying out all of the charges against Backpage? Pretty much everything she said in that speech, save for the list of charges, turned out to be nothing but a pack of lies.

Sorry to mention the politics of all of this but I feel it is an important part of how all of this played out.

Over on the funny side, That One Guy's first place win is for a response to a certain commenter complaining about efforts to fight disinformation:

What a surprise, someone who constantly makes claims and then runs away when asked to support them isn't a fan of a system where that sort of behavior is penalized.

In second place, it's an anonymous comment on our post about Australia's intermediary liability rules, and specifically our description of how "the country down under has always taken an upside down view":

You had to do this.

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start out with a comment from That Anonymous Coward about GoDaddy's Texas takedown:

Won't anyone think of about those poor people who wrote bots to pretend they were in texas & submit hundreds of bogus leads to the website?

Finally, it's Flakbait with a response to the news that the FTC is looking into broken McDonalds ice cream machines:

About time!

I am just so glad, so relieved to see the Feds moving on to an important topic and away from the trivial distraction of topics like the price of insulin and EpiPens. It makes me much less frustrated by the amount I pay in taxes.

That's all for this week, folks!

This Week In Techdirt History: September 5th - 11th

from the past-to-present dept

Five Years Ago

This week in 2016, AT&ampT was tapdancing around its DirecTV merger obligations and tiptoeing past a sleepy FCC's net neutrality rules — perhaps because the FCC was busy weakening its cable box reform plans in response to industry lobbying, although this didn't stop Comcast from still finding things to whine about, nor the MPAA from freaking out about the new plan. Warner Bros. managed to issue DMCA takedowns for its own website, Take Two won its publicity rights lawsuits against Lindsay Lohan and Karen Gravano, and Google screwed over a bunch of media websites. We took a closer look at why the Copyright Office acts as Hollywood's lobbying arm, while a terrible ruling in the EU said that mere links can be direct infringement.

Ten Years Ago

This week in 2011, the MPAA was so thrilled with the Zediva ruling that it was offering to help the court spread it around, and was also busy pushing bogus piracy numbers that suggested pirates would buy 200 more DVDs per year if they couldn't download stuff. France was placing copyright above human rights, Sweden was dismantling its online civil rights at the behest of US content industries, a Russian bureaucrat was calling for Google and Youtube to be shut down for facilitating infringement, a Canadian politician turned out to have secretly asked the US to ramp up diplomatic pressure for more draconian copyright laws, and Europe was adopting a copyright strategy that would see Europeans send as much money as possible to US companies — while also seizing the public domain by retroactively extending copyright. EMI was getting desperate with legal theories about pre-1972 songs, the RIAA was sending DMCA takedowns over free music being distributed directly from the Universal Music website, and Puerto 80 was continuing its fight over the DOJ's domain seizures.

Fifteen Years Ago

This week in 2006, a patent dispute had the bizarre effect of forcing SanDisk to only show photos of a new MP3 player at a trade show, though the company managed to get the injunction overturned when it was too late. Clear Channel was fighting for relaxed rules so it could buy up even more radio stations, newspapers were still really struggling to understand the internet, and magazines were fumbling around trying to cash in on the online video craze. EMI was freaking out and demanding IP addresses over a popular new Beatles/Beach Boys mashup, while a settlement with Bertlesmann over its Napster investment was poised to make things complicated for investors. And we also had another of our early posts talking about Section 230 back when it was a relatively obscure law to most people, rather than a well-known political football (not that broad understanding of how it works has actually improved much since then).

Filed Under: history, look back

Huge GTA4 Mod Started In 2014 Shuts Down Due To 'Hostility' From Take-Two Interactive

from the mod-squad dept

For some reason, it seems that there is an industry issue heating up among video game developers and publishers over their modding communities. We've begun to see a flurry of stories on the topic lately and perhaps the most impressive thing about those stories is how wildly binary they are. Nintendo tends to Nintendo, for instance, where control is valued over building a community of fans. Other publishers, like CD Projekt Red and Bethesda go the completely opposite direction and not only embrace the modding communities for their games, but also sometimes simply hire talented modders directly to their payroll.

Take-Two Interactive, the publishers of the Grand Theft Auto franchise and the subject of this post, has a history of bullying ambitious modders into shutting down. The company has recently put this practice into overdrive, going after all kinds of modding teams working on current and past GTA games, with the speculation being that it's all being done because of a forthcoming remaster of some of those older games.

Well, the hostility has gotten bad enough that some fan-run projects are simply shutting down before the legal threats start flying. That appears to be the case with an incredibly ambitious mod for GTA: San Andreas.

As a result of this hostility, GTA Underground lead developer dkluin wrote in a post yesterday on the GTAForums that they and the other modders working on the project were now “officially ceasing the development” of GTA: Underground.

“Due to the increasing hostility towards the modding community and imminent danger to our mental and financial well-being,” explained dkluin, “We sadly announce that we are officially ceasing the development of GTA: Underground and will be shortly taking all official uploads offline.”

The mod had aimed at putting all the historical cities from GTA games on a single map, while also developing new home-grown cities for people to play in. Work on it began in 2014, when dkluin was a teenager. As is so often the case with this sort of thing, this was a labor of love by a modder and a community that clearly love the GTA games. But, with Take-Two again set to release a bunch of GTA remasters sometime in the future, the lawyers have been sic'd on all kinds of mods.

In its fair well video by dkluin, where they announce the end of development and then thank all who contributed to it, the comments were almost universally negative towards Take-Two. Examples include:

• I hate how anti-modding Take2 is towards modding, even for games that are nearly two decades old
• Been watching this since evolve since 2014. Truly tragic, I don’t even see the benefit of shutting these mods down from a business end unless T2 wants to achieve this same goal GTA Underground has but from a profit angle. But they’d never put all the cities from the 3D era in one map/client, so I don’t understand the move. This is like watching part of my teenage years die. I was 17 when I subbed to this channel, I am 25 now.
• One of the best mods we can see out there and this is the result, I hate Take-Two

It goes on from there, with hundreds of comments. Now replicate this anger across all the different mods that were developed or in development for a game that came out nearly 20 years ago. All of that very real anger felt by very real fans of GTA and all directed towards Take-Two is going to have some impact on the public's willingness to keep buying Take-Two games.

Apparently the company is betting that such anger is not enough to outweigh the profits gained by remastering old GTA games and exerting strict control. I have my doubts that this was the best route for Take-Two to go.

Filed Under: fans, grand theft auto, gta4, mods, video games
Companies: take two interactive