In Elf Man v. Lamberson (WAED 13-cv-00395) the plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice. No, defendant did not settle succumbing to threats. Quite the opposite: after being presented with undeniable evidence of unethical and possibly illegal conduct by the plaintiff, the trolling house of cards started disintegrating quickly, and yesterday the plaintiff attempted to disgracefully run away like a petty thief caught with a stolen pack of cigarettes.
Category: Ignorant or unreasonable
US Trade Rep’s Updated “Trade Objectives” Continue to Reflect Flawed Priorities
The Office of the United States Trade Representative published its updated objectives for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement, including its priorities in the Intellectual Property (IP) chapter of the multilateral trade agreement. Its new objectives in copyright enforcement mostly contain some vague rhetorical changes while continuing to bolster bloated claims about the necessity of IP enforcement for the U.S. economy without any commitment to protecting users’ rights. The U.S. Trade Rep’s language reflect the underlying, ongoing problem with the executive agency’s misplaced priorities on negotiating international trade deals.
Malibu Media (X-Art) goes into meltdown mode over FightCopyrightTrolls
Plaintiff is the target of a fanatical Internet hate group. The hate group is comprised of BitTorrent users, anti-copyright extremists, former BitTorrent copyright defendants and a few attorneys. Opposing counsel is one of its few members. Indeed, as shown below, opposing counsel communicates regularly with the hate group’s leader. Members of the hate group physically threaten, defame and cyber-stalk Plaintiff as well everyone associated with Plaintiff. Their psychopathy is criminal and scary.
By administering and using the defamatory blog www.fightcopyrighttrolls.com, “Sophisticated Jane Doe” (“SJD”) leads the hate group. SJD is a former defendant is a suit brought by another copyright owner… She is a self-admitted BitTorrent copyright infringer. SJD’s dedicates her life to stopping peer-to-peer infringement suits.
The US is at war… with itself
Police SWAT teams are now deployed tens of thousands of times each year, increasingly for routine jobs. Masked, heavily armed police officers in Louisiana raided a nightclub in 2006 as part of a liquor inspection. In Florida in 2010, officers in SWAT gear and with guns drawn carried out raids on barbershops that mostly led only to charges of “barbering without a license.”
Amazon Got ‘Photography Against A White Background’ Patent Because CAFC Says Obvious Ideas Must Be Written Down
So, about a month ago, we [Techdirt] wrote about Amazon’s ridiculous new patent on “photography against a white background,” which got a fair bit of attention. There were debates among photographers, patent lawyers and lots of other people with opinions about just how legitimate (or not) the patent really was (hint: it’s not). However, Charles Duan, Public Knowledge’s patent expert, has written up a fantastic explanation for how Amazon was able to get the patent. And the main culprit, in a twist that should surprise no one is… CAFC. Yes, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit strikes again.
The ethically challenged court that is at the root of so many problems in the patent system, often thanks to a too close relationship with patent lawyers, is the heart of the problem once again. Even with the Supreme Court unanimously reversing CAFC left and right (and even saying that CAFC “fundamentally misunderstands what it means to infringe” a patent), CAFC is still causing all sorts of damage.
Head over to Techdirt to read the full article. It will make most people cringe.
High School Principal Cancels Entire Reading Program To Stop Students From Reading Cory Doctorow’s ‘Little Brother’
Little Brother had been selected and approved as the school’s summer One School/One Book reading pick, and the school librarian Betsy Woolley had worked with Mary Kate Griffith from the English department to develop an excellent educational supplement for the students to use to launch their critical discussions in the fall. The whole project had been signed off on by the school administration and it was ready to go out to the students when the principal intervened and ordered them to change the title.
In an email conversation with Ms Griffith, the principal cited reviews that emphasized the book’s positive view of questioning authority, lauding “hacker culture”, and discussing sex and sexuality in passing. He mentioned that a parent had complained about profanity (there’s no profanity in the book, though there’s a reference to a swear word). In short, he made it clear that the book was being challenged because of its politics and its content.
Ultimately, the entire schoolwide One Book/One School program was cancelled.
I would recommend that everyone go ahead and read that book. It’s quite excellent at describing the dangers of creating a unchecked surveillance-based society.
DOJ Admits It’s Still Destroying Evidence In NSA Case; Judge Orders Them (Again) To Stop; DOJ Flips Out
In the court case between DOJ and EFF, the DOJ has apparently decided the temporary restraining order ordering them to preserve any relevant evidence, doesn’t concern them. According to the DOJ, preserving evidence means that the terrorists will win.
The court has now sent a new TRO, reaffirming the previous.
In its TRO, the Court ordered the government to refrain from any further destruction of evidence pending final resolution of the parties’ dispute over the government’s evidence preservation obligations: “Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and all those in active concert or participation with them are prohibited, enjoined, and restrained from destroying any potential evidence relevant to the claims at issue in this action, including but not limited to prohibiting the destruction of any telephone metadata or ‘call detail’ records, pending further order of the Court.” ECF No. 189 at 2 (emphasis added). In its Amended Minute Order, the Court reiterated that the TRO’s prohibition on any evidence destruction remains in effect until the Court has finally decided the evidence preservation dispute: “The Court extends the temporary restraining order issued on March 10, 2014 until a final order resolving the matter is issued.” ECF No. 206 at 1.
The response from the DOJ was simple, yet unbelievable
Undersigned counsel have been advised by the National Security Agency that compliance with the June 5, 2014 Order would cause severe operational consequences for the National Security Agency (NSA’s) national security mission, including the possible suspension of the Section 702 program and potential loss of access to lawfully collected signals intelligence information on foreign intelligence targets that is vital to NSA’s foreign intelligence mission.
So basically, look the other way or the terrorists win.
I would rather say; If we look the other way, the terrorists win.
Secret Trials: UK Holds A Secret Terror Trial, As US Appeals Court Holds Secret Hearing In Terror Case
Mike Masnick over at Techdirt has published an excellent article about a trial where everyone except the three judges and attorneys representing the government were denied access, all in the name of “national security”.
As the arguments concluded, Judge Richard Posner announced the public portion of the proceedings had concluded and ordered the stately courtroom cleared so the three-judge panel could hold a “secret hearing.” Daoud’s attorney, Thomas Anthony Durkin, rose to object, but Posner did not acknowledge him. Deputy U.S. marshals then ordered everyone out – including Durkin, his co-counsel and reporters.
Only those with the proper security clearance — including U.S. Attorney Zachary Fardon, his first assistant, Gary Shapiro, and about a dozen FBI and U.S. Department of Justice officials – were allowed back in the courtroom before it was locked for the secret session.
Update on faithInHumanity–;
This is an update for this post
I won’t say I told you so, but…you know what, screw it, I told you so. I told you the horror story out of Waukesha, Wisconsin, where two girls attacked a friend, nearly killing her, invoking the name of Slender Man, the creation of one user on internet site Creepypasta, would result in yet another moral panic iteration. Truth be told, it wasn’t a difficult prediction to make and I certainly wasn’t going out on a limb. This kind of thing is sadly as predictable as the weather in San Diego, but not nearly as pleasant. Already the focus is being cast exactly where it shouldn’t, even by police officials.
“This should be a wake-up call for all parents,” Russell P. Jack, Waukesha’s police chief, said in a statement Monday. “Parents are strongly encouraged to restrict and monitor their children’s Internet usage.”
What Excuse Remains for Obama’s Failure to Close GITMO?
I find it sad that their motto os "Honor Bound to Defend Freedom". That must be some special American version of Freedom.
In order to secure the release of American POW Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl, the Obama administration agreed to release from Guantanamo five detainees allegedly affiliated with the Taliban. But as even stalwart Obama defenders such as Jeffery Toobin admit, Obama “clearly broke the law” by releasing those detainees without providing Congress the 30-day notice required by the 2014 defense authorization statute
(…)
The only conceivable legal argument to justify this release is if the Obama White House argues that the law does not and cannot bind them. As documented by MSNBC’s Adam Serwer – who acknowledges that “when it comes to the legality of the decision [critics] have a point” – Obama has suggested in the past when issuing signing statements that he does not recognize the validity of congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees because these are decisions assigned by the Constitution solely to the commander-in-chief
(…)
But once you take the position that Obama can override — i.e., ignore — Congressional restrictions on his power to release Guantanamo detainees, then what possible excuse is left for his failure to close the camp? As Jason Leopold notes in an astute article at Al Jazeera, this week’s episode “has led one human rights organization to question why the Obama administration has not acted to transfer dozens of other detainees who have been cleared for release for many years.”