Dark Authority

The Background Dope on DHS' Recent Seizure of Domains

2010-12-06T19:24:00.003-04:00

Libérale et libertaire has written an excellent analysis of the recent seizure of a number of Internet domains by the US Department of Homeland Security.

Does Alleged Infringement Now Equal Actual Infringement

2010-12-06T18:21:00.008-04:00

With respect to the US Department of Homeland Security's recent seizure of domains allegedly involved in copyright infringement, you'd think a just legal system would first require the state prove its claim that a particular website is indeed infringing, but that kind of thing is apparently not important to the Obama Administration. Napster at least got the benefit of a trial: In court you can argue your practices don't constitute contributory infringement even if you end up losing like Napster did. In the future, it seems, you won't even have the benefit of a trial.

The entertainment industry is finally getting a return on its cash investment in the Obama administration.

Oil Spill

2010-07-12T16:20:00.005-04:00

A seriously fucked up new policy from the Obama administration:

Want to know what's at stake here? See for yourself.

Regulation Through Intimidation

2009-05-18T19:28:00.010-04:00

Attorney General Henry McMaster doesn't like Craigslist's "Erotic Services" section, so:

He threatens Craigslist with criminal charges.
Craigslist bows under the pressure and removes Erotic Services section.

Threats can carry a great deal of power, allowing attorneys general to often engage in this sort of regulation through intimidation. Given that Craigslist itself wasn't breaking any laws, threatening to prosecute Craigslist officials as a kind of non-legislative regulatory device is dishonest, abusive, and just plain wrong.

Obama on Bush-Era Interrogations of Terror Suspects

2009-04-17T10:35:00.014-04:00

The Obama Administration has released a set of memos from the George W. Bush era detailing and authorizing the use of torture in interrogations of terror suspects, even as it dismisses the public's call for prosecution:

"This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in America’s ability to right its course in concert with our core values, and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future." [emphasis added]

The idea that nothing will be gained by "laying blame for the past" is, of course, absolutely ridiculous. Criminal prosecution always concerns the past: you do not prosecute people for the things they will do -- you prosecute them for the things they did do. If nothing shall be gained by focusing on the path, then nothing is to be gained from any sort of prosecution of any sort of criminal, whether said criminal is accused of murder, rape, theft, or illegal interrogation practices.

The Obama Administration says it has "taken steps to ensure that the actions described within them never take place again", but how can he possibly guarantee that? Any steps to prevent torture in the future are incomplete without the power and willingness to prosecute those who do evade whatever measures are put in place. Torture will always be possible, and if every Administration were to adopt Obama's stance on "laying blame for the past", every Administration would be held blameless for the very kinds of practices the Obama Administration claims to oppose.

Obama's Stance on Warantless Wiretaps is Even Worse than Bush's

2009-04-09T13:41:00.005-04:00

The EFF reports the Obama Administration, "in a motion to dismiss Jewel v. NSA, EFF's litigation against the National Security Agency for the warrantless wiretapping of countless Americans, [has] made two deeply troubling arguments."

1. "They argued, exactly as the Bush Administration did on countless occasions, that the state secrets privilege requires the court to dismiss the issue out of hand. They argue that simply allowing the case to continue 'would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security.' As in the past, this is a blatant ploy to dismiss the litigation without allowing the courts to consider the evidence."

2. "... the Bush Administration has argued that the U.S. possesses 'sovereign immunity' from suit for conducting electronic surveillance that violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). However, FISA is only one of several laws that restrict the government's ability to wiretap. The Obama Administration goes two steps further than Bush did, and claims that the US PATRIOT Act also renders the U.S. immune from suit under the two remaining key federal surveillance laws: the Wiretap Act and the Stored Communications Act. Essentially, the Obama Adminstration has claimed that the government cannot be held accountable for illegal surveillance under any federal statutes."

Stupid Political Correctness

2009-02-16T12:29:00.008-04:00

Political correctness can hardly get more stupid than this:

"The uproar over the Miley Cyrus photo that some Asian groups have deemed offensive has spilled over to the courtroom.

According to court documents obtained by Access Hollywood, a Los Angeles woman is suing Miley over the photograph — for an amount that could add up to over $4 billion.

According to court documents, Lucie J. Kim, who brought the suit against the pop star, claims to represent over 1 million people of Asian Pacific Islander descent in the Los Angeles area. Kim claims that she and others are victims 'of [Cyrus’] discriminatory acts.'"

Filing such a meritless lawsuit should not be without consequences. At the very least, she should be required to pay Cyrus' legal fees, and punitive damages should be awarded as well, similar to how it is done in SLAPP cases.

The photo in question may be found here.

Supreme Court 2, First Amendment 0

2007-07-23T20:52:00.000-04:00

ReligiousFreaks has some interesting things to say about a couple of disappointing decisions by the US Supreme Court, the first concerning a student's right to free speech ("Bong Hits 4 Jesus") and the second concerning the separation of state and church (spending your tax dollars on faith-based initiatives).

The sad part is that we're stuck with these judges until they either retire or die.

Delusions can be harmful

2007-06-23T14:19:00.000-04:00

Delusions are often harmful. Sometimes they are harmful to those who are delusional, but sometimes they are more harmful to the people around them.

An excellent example of the latter sort of delusion is the recent controversy over a bill that would force hospitals to offer rape victims the so-called morning-after pill, intended as a form of emergency contraception. There are those in the medical profession who oppose the bill on religious grounds and want catholic hospitals to be exempted from such a requirement, claiming the law interferes with their religious freedom. These people think it's a moral virtue to refuse emergency contraception to victims of rape. These people are delusional, but it's the people around them who suffer.

"If fertilization already has occurred, Catholic hospitals view themselves as treating not one patient, but two: the woman and her newly conceived child. Emergency contraceptions would cause the death of one of those patients."

Silly people have a right to believe whatever they wish to believe, but hospitals have a duty to their patients. A patient's health and well-being are more important that a hospital's "religious freedom". Reality is more important than a delusion.

No touching please

2007-06-22T21:29:00.000-04:00

A 13-year-old boy got into a bit of trouble with his school for violating its no-touch policy after he put his arm over his girlfriend's shoulder during lunch. According to The Richmond Times-Dispatch, "a school administrator told [the boy] the next day that he violated two rules -- leaving his assigned seat and hugging his girlfriend."

Kids like this boy and girl spend most of their day in school, so these kinds of policies have a significant impact upon their lives. Why should schools be able to deny kids the expression of the basic need for human contact and socialization? Is there anything positive to be said about this odd mixture of puritanism and political correctness?

These school administrators -- these are the people in charge of your children's education. These are the people who shape their minds, to prepare them for the future. Be wary of what the future may bring at the hands of such people! Shun the aseptic, cold-hearted half-wits who sit upon their little thrones, and celebrate this student's right to be human.

Let the children go on foot and on bike

2007-04-16T18:16:00.000-04:00

A brilliant piece from the LA Times about paranoid parenting, as quoted in Bruce Schneier's blog:

Although statistics show that rates of child abduction and sexual abuse have marched steadily downward since the early 1990s, fear of these crimes is at an all-time high. Even the panic-inducing Megan's Law Web site says stranger abduction is rare and that 90 percent of child sexual-abuse cases are committed by someone known to the child. Yet we still suffer a crucial disconnect between perception of crime and its statistical reality. A child is almost as likely to be struck by lightning as kidnapped by a stranger, but it's not fear of lightning strikes that parents cite as the reason for keeping children indoors watching television instead of out on the sidewalk skipping rope.

And when a child is parked on the living room floor, he or she may be safe, but is safety the sole objective of parenting? The ultimate goal is independence, and independence is best fostered by handing it out a little at a time, not by withholding it in a trembling fist that remains clenched until it's time to move into the dorms.

Meanwhile, as rates of child abduction and abuse move down, rates of Type II diabetes, hypertension and other obesity-related ailments in children move up. That means not all the candy is coming from strangers. Which scenario should provoke more panic: the possibility that your child might become one of the approximately 100 children who are kidnapped by strangers each year, or one of the country's 58 million overweight adults?

A Pledge of Non-Allegiance

2007-04-14T15:05:00.000-04:00

"I pledge no allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, nor to the Republic for which it stands, a Nation under Man, divisible and divided, with nominal liberty and justice for all."

Why? Because...

My rights as a citizen are not contingent upon swearing allegiance to any nation.
There is no evidence of a divine or supreme being, nor in any case is America run under God's authority.
No nation is indivisible, nor is America undivided.
The government itself can be a threat to liberty and justice, through the enactment of unconstitutional laws, through the selective enforcement of broad, discretionary laws, and through indifference to the negative effects of its actions and inaction upon those outside the political majority.

Traitors in our midst

2006-06-27T16:17:00.000-04:00

What do you do when a newspaper exposes the fact that you're spying on your citizens by looking at their bank records and listening in on their phone calls? You accuse the paper of treason, of course! According to the Courier-Journal article, US Senator Jim Bunning said "Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez should empanel a grand jury to decide whether the New York Times' publisher, editors and writers involved in the bank records story should be indicted for treason."

The New York Times' horrible "crime" was to reveal that "under a secret Bush administration program initiated weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks, counterterrorism officials have gained access to financial records from a vast international database and examined banking transactions involving thousands of Americans and others in the United States, according to government and industry officials."

President Bush responded to the "leak" by saying that "the disclosure of this program is disgraceful. We're at war with a bunch of people who want to hurt the United States of America. And for people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America. What we were doing was the right thing. Congress is aware of it. And we were within the law to do so."

Disgraceful? What's disgraceful is the president's support of the willful violation of the rights of US citizens in the name of fighting terrorism. What's disgraceful is for government officials to brand as traitors those who inform the American public of the government's illegal domestic surveillance activities. What's disgraceful is the way the government plays the terrorism card whenever it does something that is harmful to its citizens.

Shame on you, President Bush!

Further reading: The Bush lynch mob against the nation's free press.

Please keep your decency in your pants!

2006-06-26T15:41:00.000-04:00

The government is once again attempting to regulate pornography online by requiring websites carrying pornographic content to add special tags to their pages to indicate the nature of that content.

When will people realize that displaying pictures of breasts and genitalia will not lead to society's collapse or turn kids into deviant monsters? I'll promise not to shove my dick in your face if you promise to keep your superstitious moral principles away from mine.

Recommended reading: Defending Pornography by Nadine Strossen and Not in Front of the Children by Marjorie Heins.

Who needs the ESRB?

2006-04-26T15:41:00.000-04:00

The current ratings model adopted by US video-game publishers has the ESRB as the sole entity in charge of handing out ratings. Publishers submit their games to the ESRB and the ESRB eventually issues ratings for the particular games being considered. This system has been accepted and adopted by all major publishers, but is it possible the ESRB is unnecessary in its capacity as the central authority behind video game ratings?

Examples of rating or labeling systems that don't revolve around a review board are the music industry's parental advisory warnings, television's v-chip ratings and AAMA's ratings for coin-op games. Instead of relying on a central authority these ratings and descriptors are applied directly by music publishers, TV networks and coin-op manufacturers.

Is it too late for publishers of PC and console games to adopt a rating system that doesn't depend on a central authority?

Do Libertarians truly love freedom?

2006-03-13T17:17:00.000-04:00

"Libertarians believe that you have the right to live your life as you wish, without the government interfering -- as long as you don’t violate the rights of others. Politically, this means Libertarians favor rolling back the size and cost of government, and eliminating laws that stifle the economy and control people’s personal choices." Sound good?

When you hear Libertarians speak of freedom, be mindful of the sort of freedom they advocate. If there's one thing Libertarians love above all else it is the concept of private property. They argue against the tyranny of the state yet defend almost any kind of restriction if it's framed in terms of private property. The government is not to interfere with the rights of property owners, but the property owners are free to impose whatever rules they can express in terms of private property rights.

If every acre of land were owned by private entities and these entities joined together to establish a common set of rules, the same people who now complain about the tyranny of the state would -- if they are consistent in their ideals -- defend the property owners' right to regulate the use of their property. Those who own no land would be subject to the terms imposed by the property owners, and no "libertarian" would dare cry tyranny without becoming a hypocrite.

When the landlords are happy, the libertarians are happy.

The US Government is tracking your movements

2006-02-14T20:21:00.000-04:00

The FBI and the US Department of Justice are taking advantage of the fact that cell phones must transmit global positioning information for emergency purposes in order to track the movements of US citizens during the course of their investigations.

According to Declan McCullagh, "The problem is that the Justice Department's current official position--a flip-flop from its previous official position--says police should be able to secretly monitor your whereabouts as long as they claim that tracking could possibly be 'relevant' to some investigation. Not only is that insufficiently privacy-protective, it doesn't track what the law actually says."

Coin-op regulation in Puerto Rico

2005-12-17T00:59:00.000-04:00

Operators of coin-operated video games in Puerto Rico are required by law to adopt a rating system known as the Coin Operated Video Game Parental Advisory System.

Translated from Spanish, this law "creates the Advisory Board to the Department of Consumer Affairs Regarding Rating Systems for Television Programs, Video Games and Dangerous Toys, henceforth 'Advisory Board' or 'Board', with the purpose of advising the Secretary over the design of guidelines for the classification of television programs and video games according to their content and over the rules applicable to dangerous toys or toys which could induce of promote violence in children. In order to meet these purposes, the Board shall have the following duties:

[...]

To implement the video game classification system known as 'Coin Operated Video Game Parental Advisory System' to classify games according to their content. It will also require compulsory adoption of this rating system by establishments, businesses and game rooms that operate coin-operated video game machines [emphasis added]."

As a US territory Puerto Rico is bound by the United States Constitution. While such a law is unikely survive a constitutional challenge, industry organisations in the US don't seem interested in fighting laws outside the 50 US states.

Another law in Puerto Rico imposes higher license fees for coin-operated video games featuring violent or sexual content than for those with non-violent and non-sexual content. While ordinary coin-op games are taxed at $25 per year, game machines with violent or sexual content are taxed at $200 per year. This discriminatory practice, based solely on the game's content, is another clear violation of the US constitution.

German Government Seeks Ban on Violent Games

2005-11-19T16:21:00.000-04:00

According to GameDailyBiz, the German government wishes to impose a total ban on "all violent video games that simulate brutal killings". While Germany already prohibits the sale of specific video games when the customer is a minor, this law would prohibit the sale of certain kinds of violent games whether the customer is a minor or an adult.

Governator Signs New Law

2005-10-09T01:55:00.000-04:00

Governator Arnold Schwarzenegger -- himself no stranger to violent media -- has signed into law a bill that bars the sale of "violent video games" to minors and requires that such games be labeled "with a solid white '18' outlined in black", with "dimensions of no less than 2 inches by 2 inches". The number "shall be displayed on the front face of the video game package."

Sometimes I feel like George Taylor after he landed on an "alien" planet run by talking apes.

See also Google and Technorati.

The Internet Gets a Red-Light District

2005-08-16T22:44:00.000-04:00

In June 2005, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) approved the creation of an xxx top-level domain (TLD) for pornographic websites. This reverses their previous decision back in November 2000, when they decided against the creation of the xxx TLD. The Bush administration, responding to the recent decision by ICANN, is objecting to the creation of the new TLD. Meanwhile, many of the folks at Slashdot are objecting to Bush's objection to the xxx TLD.

While the Bush administration's decision is based more on opposition to pornography than on opposition to the xxx TLD, the arguments raised by Slashdot readers are rather problematic. The prevailing argument appears to be that the Bush administration should not interfere with the ICANN's decisions, and that an xxx TLD is a good idea because it could make it easier for parents and system-administrators to filter out pornographic content. The second part of this argument raises important free-speech concerns.

While the xxx domain is currently voluntary, could it eventually become mandatory? The government could require that pornographic content be hosted exclusively on xxx domains, the ICANN could change the rules for com, net and org domains to allow only non-pornographic content, and hosting providers could refuse to host pornographic websites not associated with an xxx domain. In short, there are many ways in which an xxx domain could be abused, all in the name of keeping smut away from impressionable eyes.

The xxx TLD could become a mechanism for the regulation of pornographic websites hosted on xxx domains. According to ZDNet, a "nonprofit organization called the International Foundation For Online Responsibility will be in charge of setting the rules for .xxx. It's intended to have a seven-person board of directors, including a child advocacy advocate, a free-expression aficionado and someone from the adult entertainment industry." What are the rules being set, and why do we need a "child advocacy advocate" to make decisions about adult-oriented domains? Would they require use of AVS (age-verification systems) by websites that use the xxx TLD?

According to an earlier statement by Stuart Lawley, whose company -- ICM Registry -- will administer the xxx TLD, "apart from child pornography, which is completely illegal, we're really not in the content-monitoring business". While this may seem reassuring, how will they decide what constitutes "child pornography"? Which country's definition of "child pornography" will they adopt? Shutting down child pornographers is the government's job, not the registrar's.

There's no good reason why pornographic content should be stuffed into the xxx TLD and isolated from the rest of the Internet's namespace. What is so terrible about pornography that it must be kept in its very own TLD? Who the hell knows. It's a silly decision grounded upon primitive moral codes.

See also: .sex considered dangerous, XXX TLD is a dumb idea.

MGM v. Grokster

2005-06-27T18:10:00.000-04:00

The Supreme Court of the United States has decided in favor of MGM in its case against Grokster, sending the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals while holding that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."

In its decision, the court concludes "there is substantial evidence in MGM's favor on all elements of inducement, and summary judgment in favor of Grokster and StreamCast was error. On remand, reconsideration of MGM's motion for summary judgment will be in order. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion."

Let's hope the lower courts don't interpret the concept of "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement" so broadly that it creates an unreasonable degree of liability for distributors of peer-to-peer software.

See also "Congress applauds file-sharing ruling", "Hollywood wins Internet piracy battle" and "MGM triumphs Over Grokster, Not P2P".

Remote Parenting

2005-05-24T22:09:00.000-04:00

When the FCC issued its mandate requiring TV manufacturers to include the v-chip in televisions, their presumed goal was to protect children from "harmful" content. You see, kids who watch television while mommy and daddy are out celebrating might be exposed to all sorts of things their parents don't want them to see, and since the parents can't be bothered to deal with such minutia they turn to the government to do their dirty work; their dirty cleanup work, that is.

There's a commercial playing on Cable TV that teaches parents about the wonders of this digital nanny. According to its joyful yet concerned narrator: "You can change the channel from here, adjust the volume from over here, and control what your kids can and can't watch on TV, even when you're miles away! It's your remote control, and you can use it to restrict access to any channel you don't want your kids watching, and to automatically block shows based on ratings. Talk about remote control! To learn more visit controlyourtv.org. Cable TV. Take control. It's easy!"

So now we can all rest easy knowing that while mommy is out working and daddy is fucking his secretary, the kids' primary caregiver will not allow its flickering tube to display any images the kiddies are not supposed to see.

Anybody who says parenting is a difficult job has obviously been living in a cave for the last ten years.

Real-ID Becomes Law

2005-05-10T22:54:00.000-04:00

According to Slashdot the US Senate has approved legislation that incorporates the Real ID Act, which establishes uniform standards for drivers licenses such that state-issued drivers licenses would effectively become national ID cards.

The Real ID Act was introduced by congrescritter James Sensenbrenner into an unrelated bill known as the Iraq Supplemental Spending Bill that he knew was practically guaranteed to pass both House and Senate. Such practices are dishonest and a constitute a betrayal of the trust that is placed upon legislators.

Other interesting comments at UnRealID and ArsTechnica.

Broadcast Flag-Burning

2005-05-07T00:17:00.000-04:00

According to Lawrence Lessig and the EFF, the FCC's Broadcast Flag mandate has been struck down by The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. The FCC's mandate would have required makers of digital TV tuners to incorporate technological measures against unauthorised copying of high-resolution material. This is a wonderful victory for supporters of strong fair-use rights.

Law and Wrong

2005-05-07T00:00:00.000-04:00

On page 65 of his book Free Culture, Lawrence Lessig argues that "where the law does not give people the right to take content, it is wrong to take that content even if the wrong does no harm. If we have a property system and that system is properly balanced to the technology of a time, then it is wrong to take property without the permission of a property owner." I presume the key words here are "properly balanced," but is it really fair to say that a system is properly balanced when it prohibits acts that do no harm?

I like to think that the law follows wrong. In other words, that the law does not determine wrong, but only attempts to codify it. Just as murder would be no less wrong if the law permitted it, the mere existence of a law prohibiting certain conduct does not mean such conduct is wrong. Despite its aspirations toward balance and objectivity, the law typically concerns only what is punishable and what is not. The law, insofar as it adopts a punitive approach, has no bearing upon what is right and what is wrong.

On the other hand, if a particular illegal act has caused no harm, does it follow that it isn't wrong? Of course not. From the fact that an act causes no harm in a particular case, one cannot conclude that the act is generally harmless. Practicing medicine without a license may not necessarily cause any harm, but the risk is substantial enough that it's extremely irresponsible for a person to practice medicine without the proper knowledge and experience.

The right or wrong of an act, then, depends not only on what does happen, but also on what could happen. Within this greater scope, what's right and what's wrong depend very much on what's at risk and how much risk exists. Nevertheless, the law's role in this regard remains the same: to codify wrong according to our best understanding of what that is.

It's worth pointing out that Lessig, who is a well-known supporter of less restrictive copyright laws, is writing about commercial copyright infringement such as that which takes place "in Asia and Eastern Europe". Perhaps with commercial infringement there's enough potential for harm that it's actually wrong.

The harm from commercial copyright infringement comes primarily from the fact that copyrighted works are made profitable through copyright law. Perhaps this means that Mr. Lessig is right insofar as the law has created a situation where the potential for harm exists and thus has created a wrong that did not exist before the law was enacted, but that seems like a rather creative interpretation of his statement. The law may have created the opportunity for harm by allowing copyright holders to profit from the sale of their works, but if commercial infringement is wrong it's only because it's harmful, and not because it's against the law.

More Trademark Silliness

2005-04-26T23:44:00.000-04:00

Did you know those "PC CD-ROM" icons you see on PC game boxes are trademarked by the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association? The terms PC and CD-ROM are both in common use, yet for some reason turning them into an icon is worthy of trademark protection.

IEMA will grant permission to use the icon at no cost to publishers, but the fact they can claim trademark rights over the icon is rather disturbing. What if IEMA had decided to charge publishers for use of the icon? How would publishers use the words "PC CD-ROM" in an icon that has the same dimensions as the ESRB's rating symbols -- just as IEMA has done -- without infringing upon IEMA's trademark?

We're entering into an age where everything is owned by somebody, somewhere. It's the concept of private property taken to ridiculous extremes. Isn't it about time we grew up?

End-User License Agreement?

2005-04-26T14:54:00.000-04:00

End-User License Agreements in commercial software packages usually assume the form of non-negotiable contracts to which the customer must agree before being allowed to use the software. Why are such contracts considered true agreements when they are nothing more than a unilateral imposition of terms?

Consider the following excerpt from the license for Maya Complete:

"c) Installation Location. Use of the License shall be limited to the Original Site or any other Customer site within five (5) kilometers of the Original Site. In the case of a “floating” or “network” License, Customer may install the Software on one local area network at the Original Site and Customer may simultaneously operate multiple copies of the Software on any computer directly connected to the applicable file server, provided the number of copies of the Software operating simultaneously does not exceed the total number of floating Licenses acquired by Customer and further provided the users accessing the Software through the network are no farther than five (5) kilometers from the applicable network server. Relocation of the Software may only be done with the express prior written consent of Alias."

What gives Alias the right to prevent its customers from taking the software they paid for and moving it somewhere else? Absent the contract, what legal principle would allow Alias to prevent such a thing?

The answer, of course, is nothing. Aside from the terms of this unilateral "agreement", nothing gives Alias the right to prevent its customers from moving the installation somewhere else. Only the contract stands in the way of the customer's freedom, a contract that was drafted without the customer's involvement.

A binding agreement is the product of what lawyers call "a meeting of the minds", but if the customer has no part in the drafting of the contract, how can it possibly be called a meeting of the minds?

It seems that, to some people, "agreement" stands for "whatever I say".

The Polyominous Mr. Penrose

2005-03-30T01:34:00.000-04:00

Here's an interesting piece regarding Sir Roger Penrose's attempt -- several years ago -- to claim exclusive rights to his aperiodic tilings. There are obvious commercial motives behind Mr. Penrose's attempt to monopolize mathematical discoveries, as is stated in the following excerpt from the cited piece: "Backing Penrose in his lawsuit is Pentaplex Ltd., a company that licenses Penrose tilings and other of Sir Roger's creations for use in puzzles and games."

An important point concerning this lawsuit is the fact that Mr. Penrose's tilings exhibit the strange property that, despite being non-periodic, any finite area is non-unique because the tile arrangements within that area show up an infinite number of times at certain distances from the selected area. Also significant is the fact that there's an infinite number of possible tilings, yet any finite area in any of these tilings will also be found in each of the other tilings. In essence, this means that any finite area is entirely non-unique and the inevitable product of the shape of the tiles. Should Mr. Penrose be granted exclusive rights to such a significant yet natural discovery? I don't think so.

Imagine if Benoit Mandelbrot had decided to claim exclusive rights over fractals and you can see how ridiculous Mr. Penrose's claims to exclusivity really are. Nobody should own mathematical constructs, no matter how unique, original or recognizable. Anything other than complete freedom with regard to mathematics is a form of intellectual selfishness.

"Sir" seems royal enough to me, anyway.

More About Trademarks

2005-03-28T16:43:00.000-04:00

A few years ago the EFF and the Adbusters Media Foundation filed a brief in support of Victor and Cathy Moseley over a trademark infringement suit initiated by Victoria's Secrets. It contains some interesting comments on the problems with overbroad trademark protection. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Moseleys.

In other news, a link for the Trademark Curious^TM: The Trademark Blog.

Rethinking McCain-Feingold

2005-03-27T18:33:00.000-04:00

Slashdot recently ran a piece about the FEC's desire to regulate political speech on the Internet. It raises an interesting question about just how far the government should go to prevent unfair manipulation of the democratic process.

I have always opposed the McCain-Feingold law on campaign-finance reform and was very disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it. In a country that claims to protect our right to speak freely it was a terrible blow to political speech, considering its importance. But perhaps it's not too late to save free speech, either through the courts, or, failing that, the legislature.

If we must live with a law like McCain-Feingold it's important to distinguish between spending money on speech intended to influence a candidate and spending money on speech intended to influence the voting public. While the former is problematic, the latter is a fundamental element in any democratic system.

One way to ensure this distinction is to exempt speech that is intended to express support or opposition to a candidate's public stance on a particular issue, as well as speech that is intended to express support or opposition to a particular ballot proposition. The right to criticize our leaders and laws is important, but it is most important during popular elections.

Such a policy would allow the FEC to pursue those who promote a candidate in order to obtain support for an issue the candidate has never discussed in public, but it would also create a balance between the government's desire to prevent unfair lobbying practices and the public's right to express their opinions on political matters.

Free speech is important enough that it should take precedence over campaign finance reform.

Lawsuits in the Internet AgeTM

2005-03-27T18:15:00.000-04:00

Authors often write about the problems with copyright law as it's currently written and applied, but very few authors bother to explore the issue of trademark abuse. It is a subject that concerns me very much, and I wish more people would pay attention to it.

There's a 2002 article by Brad Wardell titled Lawsuits in the Internet Age in which he discusses trademark and trade dress abuses.

There's also a book by David Bollier titled Brand Name Bullies that looks very promising, although I have yet to read it.

Another Blogger Screaming Against the Wind

2005-03-27T17:36:00.000-04:00

Against my better judgment I have started a blog where I can express my thoughts on what I perceive as unjust laws, rules and decisions. Like most blogs it is unlikely to attract much attention, but it's something I feel I must do to retain what little sanity I have left in such a mad, mad world.

Welcome to my thought dump. I hope you become infected.