Should Everyone Who Uses A Phone Or A Computer As Part Of A Crime Get A Longer Sentence?

from the so-says-the-8th-circuit dept

We've noted just how far the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) has been stretched lately. The law -- which is supposed to be used against those involved in malicious hacking -- actually breaking into computer systems and such -- keeps being used in ways totally different than intended, such as claiming that just visiting a website you weren't supposed to can now be deemed as "hacking." Michael Scott alerts us to another unintended consequence of the broad interpretation of the CFAA, involving a sex offender who got an extra 28 months on his prison sentence because he used a phone.

Now, as the article notes, if there's anyone out there who deserves a longer prison sentence, it's a sex offender who victimizes minors. But that doesn't mean we should condone stretching a computer hacking law in a ridiculous manner. In this case, because the CFAA allows increased sentencing for someone who used a computer in the commission of the crime, the judge decided that a rather standard mobile phone counts as a "computer" under the law. Even though it was a standard mobile phone, and not a smartphone or feature phone, the judge quoted Steve Wozniak in pointing out that "Everything has a computer in it nowadays."

Of course, that should be a reason why we should worry about this kind of sentencing. The idea that anyone deserves more time in prison solely because they used a mobile phone doesn't make much sense. It continues to make a mockery of the law. If the guy deserves to be in prison longer for the actual despicable crime he committed, then the law should allow such longer sentences. But the courts shouldn't twist the CFAA to accomplish that goal.

Filed Under: computers, crime, sentencing

How Lawyers For Settlers Of Catan Abuse IP Law To Take Down Perfectly Legal Competitors

from the i'll-trade-you-some-wheat-for-a-clue dept

A few years back, some friends introduced me to the board game Settlers of Catan, which has become quite popular in Silicon Valley. I did eventually buy a copy of the game, and at one point my wife wondered if there was also a software version. After searching around, we discovered that the lawyers for the company that makes Catan seem incredibly aggressive, as there clearly had been some software versions around, but one by one, most of them had disappeared. There were some licensed versions, but they actually weren't that good. It was unfortunate.

So I was interested a few weeks ago when Michael Weinberg, a lawyer at Public Knowledge, put up a discussion about whether or not there was an IP violation in doing 3D printings of Catan pieces. He explained why there actually was no actual violations there. In reading that, I realized that most of the same arguments would apply to software as well... and like magic, someone popped up in the comments to that post, noting that he had written an Android clone of Catan, and their lawyers had forced it down. Weinberg has now written a detailed explanation of why the lawyers for Catan are flat-out wrong and are abusing intellectual property law to stifle competition.

You should read the whole thing, but the key points are that only parts of the game are covered by copyright: the graphics, for example. But if you're using different graphics, you should be fine. The Android app was using different graphics. Board game rules are also not copyrightable, as they're like a recipe. Catan's lawyers claim that their rules are covered by copyright because the rules "create a protectable fable." Weinberg points out that this is "simply ridiculous." He walks through the fable, and breaks it down piece by piece to show how it's not copyrightable at all.

Although this assertion is highly questionable as a general principle, in this case it is simply ridiculous. As far as I can tell the "fable" in question is this:

Players are recent immigrants to the newly populated island of Catan. Expand your colony through the building of settlements, roads, and villages by harvesting commodities from the land around you. Trade sheep, lumber, bricks and grain for a settlement, bricks and wood for a road, or try to complete other combinations for more advanced buildings, services and specials.

Everything beyond the first sentence simply describes the gameplay. The first sentence "Players are recent immigrants to the newly populated island of Catan" is far from a wildly original piece of storytelling, and may not be able to be protected by copyright at all. Even if you could protect that one sentence with copyright, if that sentence allows Catan to protect its game then "Nations are at war, fighting to control the globe" would protect Go, Chess, Checkers, Risk, Connect Four, and just about any board game in the world. Maybe even Catan. There is very little by way of original work to protect in that "fable," and certainly nothing to extend to the rules of Settlers of Catan. I am willing to bet that very few lawyers would be willing to make Catan's assertion in front of a judge.

Then there's the trademark claim. Clearly, "Settlers of Catan" is covered by trademark, so if you were offering a product by the same name, that's in violation. But the Android app was called "Island Settlers" which is not infringing. Catan's lawyers claimed that because the developer mentions Catan, that makes it trademark infringement, but that's ludicrous. If you are accurately describing that a game is "like" Catan, there's no trademark infringement. In fact, you're specifically showing that there's no likelihood of confusion, because you're admitting that the games are not from the same source. As Weinberg notes, it's perfectly legal, if you're selling replacement parts for a Toyota Camry to mention that they work for a Camry, and thus it's perfectly legal to say you've made a game like Catan, or which matches with Catan, and not violate the trademark.

Unfortunately, the lawyers toss out all sorts of otherwise incorrect information and claims about intellectual property law, and the developer admits that, even if they're wrong, he feels he has no choice but to give up, because he can't afford to fight any sort of lawsuit, no matter how bogus it might be.

As Weinberg points out, this is the worst kind of legal bullying:

The email exchange between Catan and Neil is the worst kind of ignorant (let's assume it was ignorance) legal bullying. It is full of patently incorrect or misleading statements of US law, punctuated by threats to pull the developer into court if he fails to submit. It is a shameful example of a company trying to control what the law does not allow it to control by relying on fear and an inability to afford to go to court.

Tragically, this how much of the law works today.

Filed Under: catan, copyright, games, settlers of catan, trademark

Microsoft Accidentally Bans Its Own License From App Store?

from the nicely-done dept

It's always amusing when companies make some sort of blanket statement or policy... only to realize they did it so broadly as to go against their own interests. Then you watch them backtrack. Microsoft got itself in some hot water lately, when some people realized that the rules for Microsoft's phone app store appeared to ban certain types of open source software. The specific claim was that it said certain types of licenses were to be excluded. Among the excluded:

"Excluded License" means any license requiring, as a condition of use, modification and/or distribution of the software subject to the license, that the software or other software combined and/or distributed with it be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) redistributable at no charge.

The only problem? This appears to cover a few of Microsoft's own licenses. As Simon Phipps points out, both Microsoft's Reciprocal License and its Public License appear to violate those terms.

Upon realizing this, Microsoft is sorta trying to backtrack on this, saying that it is reconsidering the policy, but it had, in fact, done this on purpose. Still, it's apparently open to reviewing different open source licenses, meaning that it's likely trying to figure out a way to carve out rules that allow its own licenses, but still forbid GPL software. Whether you're a GPL supporter or not (and let's avoid a "holy war" discussion), this does seem a little petty.

Of course, in this rush to "app store-ify" everything, with various gatekeepers and restrictions, sooner or later people are going to remember that they can simply avoid all of this by building web apps instead.

Filed Under: licenses, open source
Companies: microsoft

Death Of Nokia's 'Comes With Music' Shows That 'Free' With DRM Is A Losing Proposition

from the dead-and-buried dept

This is from a little while ago, but I'm just catching up on some older stories. Reader Rabbit80 points us to the news that Nokia has finally put its "Comes with Music" program out of its misery and shut it down. Comes with Music was actually an interesting idea: you buy a phone and for 12 months you get free music downloads. At a conceptual level, this sounds great: you're using the abundant (free music!) to make the scarce (mobile phone!) more valuable. But, like everything, a good idea can be marred by the execution. And, in this case, the execution involved the major record labels demanding that "Comes with Music" really mean "Comes with DRM'd Music." A year and a half ago we pointed out that Comes With Music was really getting very little uptake, and the decision to kill it off just confirms how weak the pickup was.

Nokia says that it was the DRM that was the real killer:

"The markets clearly want a DRM-free music service."

And, of course, there was nothing stopping the labels from allowing a DRM-free service, but they still have this infatuation with DRM, even though they finally came around to ditching the DRM on MP3 sales.

That said, this little real world experiment once again seems to highlight how the claim that "people just want stuff for free" is a myth. Here was a case where people could get the music they wanted for free... but it came limited and so they weren't interested. It's rarely about people just wanting stuff for free. It's often about the restrictions or the convenience of things. The price is nice, but it's rarely the key factor, despite what some industry folks would like to claim.

Filed Under: drm, free, music
Companies: nokia

Murdered Over Autocorrect? Or Just Because Some People Are Crazy

from the where's-the-lawsuit? dept

I have to admit that DamnYouAutoCorrect.com has become a regular visit for me -- especially when I need a good laugh. While I get the feeling a bunch of them are faked these days, some of them are amazingly funny (this one seems to be a popular one). However, now there are some (slightly sketchy) reports coming out of the UK that an autocorrect mistake may have resulted in a murder, after some guy thought his friend was calling him a "nutter." Oddly, it was the guy whose phone made the mistake who killed the other guy, but he insists that the recipient of the misplaced "nutter" came over to his apartment with a big knife in response. Of course, the other guy also appears to have prepared himself by placing knives strategically in his apartment so he could respond. And respond he did, as the dead man apparently had over 100 injuries from the knives. I think this guy probably has got bigger problems than just his phone "autocorrecting" messages...

Filed Under: autocorrect, murder

FCC Planning To Crack Down On Cellular & GPS Jamming Devices

from the get-your-last-jam-in dept

Over the years, we've noted that mobile phone jammers were getting more popular in the US, even though they're completely illegal. However, it looks like the FCC has had enough and has announced plans to start cracking down on both mobile phone jammers and GPS jammers. The initial crackdown appears to be targeted at companies selling such jammers, but it hints at going further than that. The concern, of course, is that these jammers don't discriminate and block all sorts of legitimate communication among others. Still, the usual excuse about how it may prevent emergency responders rings a little hollow. It wasn't that long ago that no one had mobile phones and emergency responding still seemed to work. Obviously, having working mobile phones can be quite beneficial, but the FCC shouldn't overplay its hand here. Just stick with the truth: a jammer interferes with a public resource.

Filed Under: jammers, spectrum
Companies: fcc

Brazilian Telecom Authority Claims Sharing WiFi Is A Criminal Offense

from the can't-have-the-competition dept

Marcos points us to a story coming out of Brazil, where a guy who had an internet connection with WiFi, and agreed to share that connection with two neighbors is now facing two to four years in jail (Google translation of the original). Not only that but the Brazilian telecom authority ANATEL has seized his computer, modem and router, and have fined him approximately $1,800. They're claiming that sharing his WiFi was "providing an internet service without authorization." The guy is obviously fighting this in court, saying that it's ridiculous to claim that a guy sharing his WiFi should be classified as a regulated service provider...

Filed Under: brazil, crime, sharing, wifi

Unexpected New Years SMS From Mobile Operator May Have Killed Would Be Suicide Bomber

from the happy-new-year! dept

This is just classic. We've heard plenty of stories about bombs that are designed to go off when an SMS text message is received... and we know all too well about annoying and unwanted text messages from your mobile operator. But how about combining the two. Apparently, a planned suicide bombing in Russia was "averted" when the bomb went off early due to an unexpected "happy new years" SMS from the carrier, blowing up the bomb and the would-be suicide bomber at a safe house, far away from Red Square (or anything else) that was the intended target. As Wired notes:

If true, the SMS might be the only time that a wireless carrier’s SMS message has ever been useful.

Filed Under: russia, sms, suicide bomb

Nanny State: More Politicians Against Pedestrians Listening To Headphones Or Texting

from the why-don't-we-just-ban-moving dept

Four years ago, we wrote about some of the first attempts to ban using mobile phones or digital music players while crossing the street. Most of the bans simply focused on making it illegal to either text, talk into a mobile phone or have headphones on while in a crosswalk. Apparently, a bunch of local politicians are now pushing similar laws for both pedestrians and cyclists.

In California, State Sen. Joe Simitian has reintroduced a bill that would fine cyclists $20 for texting. In Oregon, State Rep. Michael Schaufler wants to fine cyclists $90 for wearing headphones or earbuds. In Virginia, lawmakers are considering whether to broaden such a ban to include any handheld communication device.

And in New York, a bill before the legislature's transportation committee would ban the use of electronic devices while crossing streets.

This is the second time State Sen. Carl Kruger has introduced this legislation to stem what he calls "tuning in and tuning out."

It's become so ridiculous, that one Arkansas state senator actually wanted to outlaw pedestrians from wearing headphones in both ears while on a street or sidewalk. The ridicule over that proposal, at least, caused the sponsor of the bill to drop it. However, it seems that many politicians are jumping on this kind of nanny state bandwagon, often citing claims that pedestrian accidents increased for the first time in four years in the first half of 2010. Of course, there could be plenty of reasons why that happened that have little to do with headphone usage (after all, it's not like there was a sudden influx of new headphone wearing pedestrians last year). On top of that, though, isn't education a better solution than outright bans?

Filed Under: headphones, laws, nanny state, pedestrians