A judge ruled against Internet Archive, a free online digital library, on Friday in a lawsuit filed by four top publishers who claimed the company was in violation of copyright laws. The publishers, Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, John Wiley & Sons, and Penguin Random House filed the lawsuit against Internet Archive in 2020, claiming the company had illegally scanned and uploaded 127 of their books for readers to download for free, detracting from their sales and the authors’ royalties.

U.S. District Court Judge John G. Koeltl ruled in favor of the publishing houses in saying that Internet Archive was making “derivative” works by transforming printed books into e-books and distributing them.

[…]

Koeltl’s decision was in part based on the law that libraries are required to pay publishers for continued use of their digital book copies and are only permitted to lend these digital copies a specified number of times, called controlled digital lending, as agreed by the publisher [not the writer!] before paying to renew its license.

[…]

However, according to the court ruling, Hachette and Penguin provide one or two-year terms to libraries, in which the eBook can be rented an unlimited number of times before the library has to purchase a new license. HarperCollins allows the library to circulate a digital copy 26 times before the license has to be renewed, while Wiley has continued to experiment with several subscription models.

[…]

The judge ruled that because Internet Archive was purchasing the book only once before scanning it and lending each digital copy an unlimited number of times, it is an infringement of copyright and “concerns the way libraries lend eBooks.

[…]

Source: ‘A Blow for Libraries’: Internet Archive Loses Copyright Infringement Lawsuit

The decision was “a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve,” argued Chris Freeland, the director of Open Libraries at the Internet Archive. In a blog post he argued the decision “impacts libraries across the U.S. who rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online. It hurts authors by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online. And it holds back access to information in the digital age, harming all readers, everywhere.
The Verge adds that the judge rejected “fair use” arguments which had previously protected a 2014 digital book preservation project by Google Books and HathiTrust:

Koetl wrote that any “alleged benefits” from the Internet Archive’s library “cannot outweigh the market harm to the publishers,” declaring that “there is nothing transformative about [Internet Archive’s] copying and unauthorized lending,” and that copying these books doesn’t provide “criticism, commentary, or information about them.” He notes that the Google Books use was found “transformative” because it created a searchable database instead of simply publishing copies of books on the internet.

Their lending model works like this. They purchase a paper copy of the book, scan it to digital format, and then lend out the digital copy to one person at a time. Their argument is that this is no different than lending out the paper copy that they legally own to one person at a time. It is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Source: Internet Archive Loses in Court. Judge Rules They Can’t Scan and Lend eBooks

Last Monday was the day of the oral arguments in the Big Publishers’ lawsuit against libraries in the form of the Internet Archive. As we noted mid-week, publishers won’t quit until libraries are dead. And they got one step closer to that goal on Friday, when Judge John Koetl wasted no time in rejecting every single one of the Internet Archive’s arguments.

The fact that the ruling came out on the Friday after the Monday oral arguments suggests pretty strongly that Judge Koetl had his mind made up pretty quickly and was ready to kill a library with little delay. Of course, as we noted just last Wednesday, whoever lost at this stage was going to appeal, and the really important stuff was absolutely going to happen at the 2nd Circuit appeals court. It’s just that now the Internet Archives, and a bunch of important copyright concepts, are already starting to be knocked down a few levels.

I’ve heard from multiple people claiming that of course the Internet Archive was going to lose, because it was scanning books (!!) and lending them out and how could that be legal? But, the answer, as we explained multiple times, is that every piece of this copyright puzzle had already been deemed legal.

And the Internet Archive didn’t just jump into this without any thought. Two of the most well known legal scholars regarding copyright and libraries, David Hansen and Kyle Courtney, had written a white paper detailing exactly how and why the approach the Internet Archive took with Controlled Digital Lending easily fit within the existing contours and precedents of copyright law.

But, as we and others have discussed for ages, in the copyright world, there’s a long history of courts ignoring what the law actually says and just coming up with some way to say something is infringement if it feels wrong to them. And that’s what happened here.

A key part of the ruling, as in a large percentage of cases that are about fair use, is looking at whether or not the use of the copy is “transformative.” Judge Koetl is 100% positive it is not transformative.

There is nothing transformative about IA’s copying and unauthorized lending of the Works in Suit.7 IA does not reproduce the Works in Suit to provide criticism, commentary, or information about them. See 17 U.S.C. § 107. IA’s ebooks do not “add[] something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the [originals] with new expression, meaning or message.” Campbell, 510 U.S. at 579. IA simply scans the Works in Suit to become ebooks and lends them to users of its Website for free. But a copyright holder holds the “exclusive[] right” to prepare, display, and distribute “derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.”

But… there’s a lot more to “transformative” use than simply adding something new or altering the meaning. In many cases, fair use is found in cases where you’re copying the exact same content, but for a different purpose, and the Internet Archive’s usage here seems pretty clearly transformative in that it’s changing the way the book can be consumed to make it easier for libraries to lend it out and patrons to read it. That is, the “transformation” is in the way the book can be lent, not the content of the book.

I know many people find this strange (and the judge did here as well) saying things like “but it’s the whole work.” Or “the use is the same because it’s still just reading the book.” But the Supreme Court already said, quite clearly, that such situations can be fair use, such as in the Sony v. Universal case that decided VCRs were legal, and that time shifting TV shows was clear fair use. In that ruling, they even cite Congress noting that “making a copy of a copyright work for… convenience” can be considered fair use.

Unfortunately, Judge Koetl effectively chops away a huge part of the Sony ruling in insisting that this is somehow different.

But Sony is plainly inapposite. IA is not comparable to the parties in Sony — either to Sony, the alleged contributory copyright infringer, or to the home viewers who used the Betamax machine for the noncommercial, nonprofit activity of watching television programs at home. Unlike Sony, which only sold the machines, IA scans a massive number of copies of books and makes them available to patrons rather than purchasing ebook licenses from the Publishers. IA is also unlike the home viewers in Sony, who engaged in the “noncommercial, nonprofit activity” of viewing at a more convenient time television programs that they had the right to view for free at the time they were originally broadcast. 464 U.S. at 449. The home viewers were not accused of making their television programs available to the general public. Although IA has the right to lend print books it lawfully acquired, it does not have the right to scan those books and lend the digital copies en masse.

But note what the Judge did here. Rather than rely on the text of what the Supreme Court actually said in Sony, he insists that he won’t apply the rules of Sony because the parties are different. But if the basic concepts and actions are covered by the Sony ruling, it seems silly to ignore them here as the judge did.

And the differences highlighted by the court here have no bearing on the actual issues and the specifics of fair use and the law. I mean, first of all, the fact that Koetl claims that the Internet Archive is not engaged in “noncommercial, nonprofit activity” is just weird. The Internet Archive is absolutely engaged in noncommerical, nonprofit activity.

The other distinctions are meaningless as well. No, IA is not building devices for people to buy, but in many ways IA’s position here should be seen as stronger than Sony’s because Sony actually was a commercial operation, and IA is literally acting as a library, increasing the convenience for its patrons, and doing so in a manner that is identical to lending out physical books. Sony created a machine, Betamax, that copied TV shows and allowed those who bought those machines to watch the show at a more convenient time. IA created a machine that copies books, and allows library patrons to access those books in a more convenient way.

Also, the Betamax (and VCR) were just as “available to the general public” as the Internet Archive is. The idea that they are substantially different is just… weird. And strikes me as pretty clearly wrong.

There’s another precedential oddity in the ruling. It relies pretty heavily on the somewhat terrible fair use ruling in the 2nd Circuit in the Warhol Foundation v. Goldsmith case. That case was so terrible that we (at the Copia Institute) weighed in with the Supreme Court to let them know how problematic it was, and the Supreme Court is still sitting on a decision in that case.

Which means the Supreme Court is soon to rule on it, and that could very much change or obliterate the case that Judge Koetl leans on heavily for his ruling.

Here, Judge Koetl repeatedly goes back to the Warhol well to make various arguments, especially around the question of the fourth fair use factor: the effect on the market. To me, this clearly weighs towards fair use, because it’s no different than a regular library. Libraries are allowed to buy (or receive donated) books and lend them out. That’s all the Open Library does here. So to argue there’s a negative impact on the market, the publishers rely on the fact that they’ve been able to twist and bend copyright law so much that they’ve created a new, extortionate market in ebook “licenses,” and then play all sorts of games to force people to buy the books rather than check them out of the library.

Judge Koetl seems particularly worried about how much damage this could do this artificially inflated market:

It is equally clear that if IA’s conduct “becomes widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for the” Works in Suit. Andy Warhol Found., 11 F.4th at 48. IA could expand the Open Libraries project far beyond the current contributing partners, allowing new partners to contribute many more concurrent copies of the Works in Suit to increase the loan count. New organizations like IA also could emerge to perform similar functions, further diverting potential readers and libraries from accessing authorized library ebooks from the Publishers. This plainly risks expanded future displacement of the Publishers’ potential revenues.

But go back and read that paragraph again, and replace the key words to read that if libraries become widespread, it will adversely affect the potential market for buying books in bookstores… because libraries would be “diverting potential readers” from purchasing physical books, which “plainly risks expanded future displacement of the Publishers’ potential revenues.”

Again, the argument here is effectively that libraries themselves shouldn’t be allowed. And that seems like a problem?

Koetl also falls into the ridiculous trap of saying that “you can’t compete with free” and that libraries will favor CDL-scanned books over licensed ones:

An accused infringer usurps an existing market “where the infringer’s target audience and the nature of the infringing content is the same as the original.” Cariou, 714 F.3d at 709; see also Andy Warhol Found., 11 F.4th at 50. That is the case here. For libraries that are entitled to partner with IA because they own print copies of books in IA’s collection, it is patently more desirable to offer IA’s bootleg ebooks than to pay for authorized ebook licenses. To state the obvious, “[i]t is difficult to compete with a product offered for free.” Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 672 F. Supp. 2d 217, 231 (D. Mass. 2009).

Except that’s literally wrong. The licensed ebooks have many features that the scanned ones don’t. And many people (myself included!) prefer to check out licensed ebooks from our local libraries rather than the CDL ones, because they’re more readable. My own library offers the ability to check out books from either one, and defaults to recommending the licensed ebooks, because they’re a better customer experience, which is how tons of products “compete with free” all the time.

I mean, not to be simplistic here, but the bottled water business in the US is an over $90 billion market for something most people can get for free (or effectively free) from the tap. That’s three times the size of the book publishing market. So, uh, maybe don’t say “it’s difficult to compete with free.” Other industries do it just fine. The publishers are just being lazy.

Besides, based on this interpretation of Warhol, basically anyone can destroy fair use by simply making up some new, crazy, ridiculously priced, highly restrictive license that covers the same space as the fair use alternative, and claim that the alternative destroys the “market” for this ridiculous license. That can’t be how fair use works.

Anyway, one hopes first that the Supreme Court rejects the terrible 2nd Circuit ruling in the Warhol Foundation case, and that this in turn forces Judge Koetl to reconsider his argument. But given the pretzel he twisted himself into to ignore the Betamax case, it seems likely he’d still find against libraries like the Internet Archive.

Given that, it’s going to be important that the 2nd Circuit get this one right. As the Internet Archive’s Brewster Kahle said in a statement on the ruling:

“Libraries are more than the customer service departments for corporate database products. For democracy to thrive at global scale, libraries must be able to sustain their historic role in society—owning, preserving, and lending books.

This ruling is a blow for libraries, readers, and authors and we plan to appeal it.”

What happens next is going to be critical to the future of copyright online. Already people have pointed out how some of the verbiage in this ruling could have wide reaching impact on questions about copyright in generative AI products or many other kinds of fair use cases.

One hopes that the panel on the 2nd Circuit doesn’t breezily dismiss these issues like Judge Koetl did.

Source: Publishers Get One Step Closer To Killing Libraries

This money grab by publishers is disgusting, for more information and articles I have referenced them here

[…]

Nike’s argument is that Max 1 is too similar to its longtime “Air Max” shoe line, including other “Max Force 1” products and other variations that include similar keywords. Verstappen had named his line of products after himself and his current racing number but encountered legal trouble soon after launch.

The Benelux Office for Intellectual Property—essentially The Netherlands’ trademark office—issued a report that Verstappen’s Max 1 brand carried a “likelihood of confusion” and posed a risk of consumers believing Max 1 products were associated with Nike.

Nike went as far as claiming that some designs in the Max 1 catalog were too similar to the apparel giant’s, while also alleging that the word MAX was prominently used and likened to Nike apparel. For these reasons, Verstappen was reportedly fined approximately $1,100 according to Express.

[…]

Source: Nike Blocks F1 Champ Max Verstappen’s ‘Max 1’ Clothing Brand

1. What about Pepsi Max

2. What about the name Max being much much older than Nike (so prior use)

3. What about people going around using the word max as in eg ‘that’s the max speed’ or ‘that’s the max that will go in’?

3. What the actual fuck, copyright.

On Monday four of the largest book publishers asked a New York court to grant summary judgment in a copyright lawsuit seeking to shut down the Internet Archive’s online library and hold the non-profit organization liable for damages.

The lawsuit was filed back June 1, 2020, by the Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons and Penguin Random House. In the complaint [PDF], the publishers ask for an injunction that orders “all unlawful copies be destroyed” in the online archive.

The central question in the case, as summarized during oral arguments by Judge John Koeltl, is: does a library have the right to make a copy of a book that it otherwise owns and then lend the ebook it has made without a license from the publisher to patrons of the library?

Publishers object to the Internet Archive’s efforts to scan printed books and make digital copies available online to readers without buying a license from the publisher. The Internet Archive has filed its own motion for summary judgment to have the case dismissed.

The Internet Archive (IA) began its book scanning project back in 2006 and by 2011 started lending out digital copies. It did so, however, in a way that maintained the limitation imposed by physical book ownership.

This activity is fundamentally the same as traditional library lending and poses no new harm to authors or the publishing industry

Its Controlled Digital Lending (CDL) initiative allows only one person to check out the digital copy of each scanned physical book. The idea is that the purchased physical book is being lent in digital form but no extra copies are being lent. IA presently offers 1.3 million books to the public in digital form.

“This activity is fundamentally the same as traditional library lending and poses no new harm to authors or the publishing industry,” IA argued in answer [PDF] to the publisher’s complaint.

“Libraries have collectively paid publishers billions of dollars for the books in their print collections and are investing enormous resources in digitization in order to preserve those texts. CDL helps them take the next step by making sure the public can make full use of the books that libraries have bought.”

The publishers, however, want libraries to pay for ebooks in addition to the physical books they have purchased already. And they claim they have lost millions in revenue, though IA insists there’s no evidence of the presumptive losses.

“Brewster Kahle, Internet Archive’s founder and funder, is on a mission to make all knowledge free. And his goal is to circulate ebooks to billions of people by transforming all library collections from analog to digital,” said Elizabeth McNamara, attorney for the publishers, during Monday’s hearing.

“But IA does not want to pay authors or publishers to realize this grand scheme and they argue it can be excused from paying the customary fees because what they’re doing is in the public interest.”

Kahle in a statement denounced the publishers’ demands. “Here’s what’s at stake in this case: hundreds of libraries contributed millions of books to the Internet Archive for preservation in addition to those books we have purchased,” he said.

“Thousands of donors provided the funds to digitize them.

“The publishers are now demanding that those millions of digitized books, not only be made inaccessible, but be destroyed. This is horrendous. Let me say it again – the publishers are demanding that millions of digitized books be destroyed.

“And if they succeed in destroying our books or even making many of them inaccessible, there will be a chilling effect on the hundreds of other libraries that lend digitized books as we do.”

[…]

Source: Big Four publishers move to crush the Internet Archive • The Register

Back in September 2021 Techdirt covered an outrageous legal attack by Sony Music on Quad9, a free, recursive, anycast DNS platform. Quad9 is part of the Internet’s plumbing: it converts domain names to numerical IP addresses. It is operated by the Quad9 Foundation, a Swiss public-benefit, not-for-profit organization. Sony Music says that Quad9 is implicated in alleged copyright infringement on the sites it resolves. That’s clearly ridiculous, but unfortunately the Regional Court of Hamburg agreed with Sony Music’s argument, and issued an interim injunction against Quad9. The German Society for Civil Rights (Gesellschaft für Freiheitsrechte e.V. or “GFF”) summarizes the court’s thinking:

In its interim injunction the Regional Court of Hamburg asserts a claim against Quad9 based on the principles of the German legal concept of “Stoererhaftung” (interferer liability), on the grounds that Quad9 makes a contribution to a copyright infringement that gives rise to liability, in that Quad9 resolves the domain name of website A into the associated IP address. The German interferer liability has been criticized for years because of its excessive application to Internet cases. German lawmakers explicitly abolished interferer liability for access providers with the 2017 amendment to the German Telemedia Act (TMG), primarily to protect WIFI operators from being held liable for costs as interferers.

As that indicates, this is a case of a law that is a poor fit for modern technology. Just as the liability no longer applies to WIFI operators, who are simply providing Internet access, so the German law should also not catch DNS resolvers like Quad9. The GFF post notes that Quad9 has appealed to the Hamburg Higher Regional Court against the lower court’s decision. Unfortunately, another regional court has just handed down a similar ruling against the company, reported here by Heise Online (translation by DeepL):

the Leipzig Regional Court has sentenced the Zurich-based DNS service Quad9. On pain of an administrative fine of up to 250,000 euros or up to 2 years’ imprisonment, the small resolver operator was prohibited from translating two related domains into the corresponding IP addresses. Via these domains, users can find the tracks of a Sony music album offered via Shareplace.org.

The GFF has already announced that it will be appealing along with Quad9 to the Dresden Higher Regional Court against this new ruling. It says that the Leipzig Regional Court has made “a glaring error of judgment”, and explains:

If one follows this reasoning, the copyright liability of completely neutral infrastructure services like Quad9 would be even stricter than that of social networks, which fall under the infamous Article 17 of the EU Copyright Directive,” criticizes Felix Reda, head of the Control © project of the Society for Civil Rights. “The [EU] Digital Services Act makes it unequivocally clear that the liability rules for Internet access providers apply to DNS services. We are confident that this misinterpretation of European and German legal principles will be overturned by the Court of Appeals.”

Let’s hope so. If it isn’t, we can expect companies providing the Internet’s basic infrastructure in the EU to be bombarded with demands from the copyright industry and others for domains to be excluded from DNS resolution. The likely result is that perfectly legal sites and their holdings will be ghosted by DNS companies, which will prefer to err on the side of caution rather than risk becoming the next Quad9.

Source: Another German Court Says The DNS Service Quad9 Is Implicated In Any Copyright Infringement At The Domains It Resolves | Techdirt

There are some incredibly stupid judges and lawyers out there

Recently, Walled Culture mentioned the problem of orphan works. These are creations, typically books, that are still covered by copyright, but unavailable because the original publisher or distributor has gone out of business, or simply isn’t interested in keeping them in circulation. The problem is that without any obvious point of contact, it’s not possible to ask permission to re-publish or re-use it in some way.

It turns out that there is another serious issue, related to that of orphan works. It has been revealed by the New York Public Library, drawing on work carried out as a collaboration between the Internet Archive and the US Copyright Office. According to a report on the Vice Web site:

the New York Public Library (NYPL) has been reviewing the U.S. Copyright Office’s official registration and renewals records for creative works whose copyrights haven’t been renewed, and have thus been overlooked as part of the public domain.

The books in question were published between 1923 and 1964, before changes to U.S. copyright law removed the requirement for rights holders to renew their copyrights. According to Greg Cram, associate general counsel and director of information policy at NYPL, an initial overview of books published in that period shows that around 65 to 75 percent of rights holders opted not to renew their copyrights.

Since most people today will naturally assume that a book published between 1923 and 1964 is still in copyright, it is unlikely anyone has ever tried to re-publish or re-use material from this period. But this new research shows that the majority of these works are, in fact, already in the public domain, and therefore freely available for anyone to use as they wish.

That’s a good demonstration of how the dead hand of copyright stifles fresh creativity from today’s writers, artists, musicians and film-makers. They might have drawn on all these works as a stimulus for their own creativity, but held back because they have been brainwashed by the copyright industry into thinking that everything is in copyright for inordinate lengths of time. As a result, huge numbers of books that are freely available according to the law remain locked up with a kind of phantom copyright that exists only in people’s minds, infected as they are with copyright maximalist propaganda.

The other important lesson to be drawn from this work by the NYPL is that given the choice, the majority of authors didn’t bother renewing their copyrights, presumably because they didn’t feel they needed to. That makes today’s automatic imposition of exaggeratedly-long copyright terms not just unnecessary but also harmful in terms of the potential new works, based on public domain materials, that have been lost as a result of this continuing over-protection.

Source: When Given The Choice, Most Authors Reject Excessively Long Copyright Terms | Techdirt

The version of the iconic character from “Steamboat Willie” will enter the public domain in 2024. But those trying to take advantage could end up in a legal mousetrap. From a report: There is nothing soft and cuddly about the way Disney protects the characters it brings to life. This is a company that once forced a Florida day care center to remove an unauthorized Minnie Mouse mural. In 2006, Disney told a stonemason that carving Winnie the Pooh into a child’s gravestone would violate its copyright. The company pushed so hard for an extension of copyright protections in 1998 that the result was derisively nicknamed the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. For the first time, however, one of Disney’s marquee characters — Mickey himself — is set to enter the public domain.

“Steamboat Willie,” the 1928 short film that introduced Mickey to the world, will lose copyright protection in the United States and a few other countries at the end of next year, prompting fans, copyright experts and potential Mickey grabbers to wonder: How is the notoriously litigious Disney going to respond? “I’m seeing in Reddit forums and on Twitter where people — creative types — are getting excited about the possibilities, that somehow it’s going to be open season on Mickey,” said Aaron J. Moss, a partner at Greenberg Glusker in Los Angeles who specializes in copyright and trademark law. “But that is a misunderstanding of what is happening with the copyright.” The matter is more complicated than it appears, and those who try to capitalize on the expiring “Steamboat Willie” copyright could easily end up in a legal mousetrap. “The question is where Disney tries to draw the line on enforcement,” Mr. Moss said, “and if courts get involved to draw that line judicially.”

Only one copyright is expiring. It covers the original version of Mickey Mouse as seen in “Steamboat Willie,” an eight-minute short with little plot. This nonspeaking Mickey has a rat-like nose, rudimentary eyes (no pupils) and a long tail. He can be naughty. In one “Steamboat Willie” scene, he torments a cat. In another, he uses a terrified goose as a trombone. Later versions of the character remain protected by copyrights, including the sweeter, rounder Mickey with red shorts and white gloves most familiar to audiences today. They will enter the public domain at different points over the coming decades. “Disney has regularly modernized the character, not necessarily as a program of copyright management, at least initially, but to keep up with the times,” said Jane C. Ginsburg, an authority on intellectual property law who teaches at Columbia University.

Source: Mickey’s Copyright Adventure: Early Disney Creation Will Soon Be Public Property – Slashdot

How it’s remotely possible that a company is capitalising on a thought someone had around 100 years ago is beyond me.

Many of you are likely to be familiar with WWDC, Apple’s Worldwide Developer Conference. This is one of those places where you get a bunch of Apple product reveals and news updates that typically result in the press tripping all over themselves to bow at the altar of an iPhone 300 or whatever. The conference has been going on for decades and one enterprising YouTube account made a point of archiving video footage from past events so that any interested person could go back and see the evolution of the company.

Until now, that is, since Apple decided to copyright-strike Brendan Shanks account to hell.

 

Now, he’s going to be moving the videos over to the Internet Archive, but that will take time and I suppose there’s nothing keeping Apple from turning its copyright guns to that site as well. In the meantime, this treasure trove of videos that Apple doesn’t seem to want to bother hosting itself is simply gone.

Now, did Shanks have permission from Apple to post those videos? He says no. Does that mean that Apple can take copyright action on them? Sure does! But why is the question. Why are antiquated videos interesting mostly to hobbyists worth all this chaos and bad PR?

The videos in question were decades-old recordings of WWDC events.

Due to the multiple violations, not only were the videos removed, but Shanks’ YouTube channel has been disabled. In addition to losing the archive, Shanks also lost his personal YouTube account, as well as his YouTube TV, which he’d just paid for.

And so here we are again, with a large company killing off a form of preservation effort in the name of draconian copyright enforcement. Good times.

Source: Apple Vanquishes Evil YouTube Account Full Of Old Apple WWDC Videos | Techdirt

“Microsoft’s GitHub Copilot is being sued in a class action lawsuit that claims the AI product is committing software piracy on an unprecedented scale,” reports IT Pro.

Programmer/designer Matthew Butterick filed the case Thursday in San Francisco, saying it was on behalf of millions of GitHub users potentially affected by the $10-a-month Copilot service: The lawsuit seeks to challenge the legality of GitHub Copilot, as well as OpenAI Codex which powers the AI tool, and has been filed against GitHub, its owner Microsoft, and OpenAI…. “By training their AI systems on public GitHub repositories (though based on their public statements, possibly much more), we contend that the defendants have violated the legal rights of a vast number of creators who posted code or other work under certain open-source licences on GitHub,” said Butterick.

These licences include a set of 11 popular open source licences that all require attribution of the author’s name and copyright. This includes the MIT licence, the GNU General Public Licence, and the Apache licence. The case claimed that Copilot violates and removes these licences offered by thousands, possibly millions, of software developers, and is therefore committing software piracy on an unprecedented scale.

Copilot, which is entirely run on Microsoft Azure, often simply reproduces code that can be traced back to open-source repositories or licensees, according to the lawsuit. The code never contains attributions to the underlying authors, which is in violation of the licences. “It is not fair, permitted, or justified. On the contrary, Copilot’s goal is to replace a huge swath of open source by taking it and keeping it inside a GitHub-controlled paywall….” Moreover, the case stated that the defendants have also violated GitHub’s own terms of service and privacy policies, the DMCA code 1202 which forbids the removal of copyright-management information, and the California Consumer Privacy Act.
The lawsuit also accuses GitHub of monetizing code from open source programmers, “despite GitHub’s pledge never to do so.”

And Butterick argued to IT Pro that “AI systems are not exempt from the law… If companies like Microsoft, GitHub, and OpenAI choose to disregard the law, they should not expect that we the public will sit still.” Butterick believes AI can only elevate humanity if it’s “fair and ethical for everyone. If it’s not… it will just become another way for the privileged few to profit from the work of the many.”

Reached for comment, GitHub pointed IT Pro to their announcement Monday that next year, suggested code fragments will come with the ability to identify when it matches other publicly-available code — or code that it’s similar to.

The article adds that this lawsuit “comes at a time when Microsoft is looking at developing Copilot technology for use in similar programmes for other job categories, like office work, cyber security, or video game design, according to a Bloomberg report.”

Source: Microsoft’s GitHub Copilot Sued Over ‘Software Piracy on an Unprecedented Scale’ – Slashdot

[…]

if you’ve been paying attention over the last couple of years, anti-cheat software is quickly becoming the new DRM. Access to root layers of the computer complaints, complaints about performance effects, complaints about how the software tracks customer behavior, and now finally we have the good old “software isn’t letting me play my game” type of complaint. This revolves around Kotaku’s Luke Plunkett, whose writing I’ve always found valuable, attempting to review EA’s latest FIFA game.

I have reviewed FIFA in some capacity on this website for well over a decade, but regular readers who are also football fans may have noticed I haven’t said a word about it this year. That’s because, over a month after the PC version’s release, I am still locked out of it thanks to a broken, over-zealous example of anti-cheat protection.

Publisher EA uses Easy Anti-Cheat, which has given me an error preventing me from even launching the game that every published workaround—from running the program as an administrator to disabling overlays (?) to editing my PC’s bios (??!!)—hasn’t solved. And so for one whole month, a game that I own and have never cheated at in my life, remains unplayable. I’ve never even made it to the main menu.

Well, gosh golly gee, that sure seems like a problem. And Plunkett isn’t your average FIFA customer. He’s a professional in the gaming journalism space and has reviewed a metric ton of games in the past. If he can’t get into the game due to this anti-cheat software, what hope does the average gamer have?

He goes on to note that FIFA isn’t the only game with this problem. EA also published Battlefield 2042, which Plunkett notes at least lets him boot into the game menu and allows him to play the game for a few minutes before it freezes up entirely. The same anti-cheat software appears to be the issue there as well.

Now, console gamers may chalk this all up to the perils of PC gaming. But that is, frankly, bullshit. This isn’t a hardware problem. It’s a publisher and software problem.

[…]

there’s certainly cheating going on in these games, but it seems like the anti-cheat software is the one cheating customers out of the games they bought.

Source: Anti-Cheat Software Continues To Be The New DRM In Pissing Off Legit Customers | Techdirt

There are a number of different tools out there that let you download YouTube videos. These tools are incredibly useful for a number of reasons and should be seen as obviously legal in the same manner that home video recording devices were declared legal by the Supreme Court, because they have substantial non-infringing uses. But, of course, we’re in the digital age, and everything that should be obviously settled law is up for grabs again, because “Internet.”

In this case, a company named Yout offered a service for downloading YouTube video and audio, and the RIAA (because, they’re the RIAA) couldn’t allow that to happen. Home taping is killing music, y’know. Rather than going directly after Yout, the RIAA sent angry letters to lots of different companies that Yout relied on to exist. It got Yout’s website delisted from Google, had its payment processor cut the company off, etc. Yout was annoyed by this and filed a lawsuit against the RIAA.

The crux of the lawsuit is “Hey, we don’t infringe on anything,” asking for declaratory judgment. But it also seeks to go after the RIAA for DMCA 512(f) (false takedown notices) abuse and defamation (for the claims it made in the takedown notices it sent). All of these were going to be a longshot, and so it probably isn’t a huge surprise that the ruling was a complete loser for Yout (first posted to TorrentFreak).

But, in reading through the ruling there are things to be concerned about, beyond just the ridiculousness of saying that a digital VCR isn’t protected in the same way that a physical one absolutely is.

In arguing for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, Yout argues that it’s not violating DMCA 1201 (the problematic anti-circumvention provisions) because YouTube doesn’t really employ any technological protection measures that Yout has to circumvent. The judge disagrees, basically saying that even though it’s easy to download videos from YouTube, it still takes steps and is not just a feature that YouTube provides.

The steps outlined constitute an extraordinary use of the YouTube platform, which is self-evident from the fact that the steps access downloadable files through a side door, the Developer Tools menu, and that users must obtain instructions hosted on non-YouTube platforms to explain how to access the file storage location and their files. As explained in the previous section, the ordinary YouTube player page provides no download button and appears to direct users to stream content. I reasonably infer, then, that an ordinary user is not accessing downloadable files in the ordinary course.

That alone is basically an attack on the nature of the open internet. There are tons of features that original websites don’t provide, but which can be easily added to any website via add-ons, extensions, or just a bit of simple programs. But, the judge here is basically saying that not providing a feature in the form of a button directly means that there’s a technological protection measure, and bypassing it could be seen as infringing.

Yikes!

Of course, part of DMCA 1201 is not just having a technological protection measure in place, but an effective one. Here, it seems like there’s an argument that it’s not a strong one. It is not at all a strong protection measure, because basically the only protection measure is “not including a download button.” But, the court sees it otherwise. Yout points out that YouTube makes basically no effort to block anyone from downloading videos, showing that it doesn’t encrypt the files, and the court responds that it doesn’t need to encrypt the files, because other technological protections exist, like passwords and validation keys. But, uh, YouTube doesn’t use either of those either. So the whole thing is weird.

As I have already explained, the definition of “circumvent a technological measure” in the DMCA indicates that scrambling and encryption are prima facie examples of technological measures, but it does not follow that scrambling and encryption constitute an exhaustive list. Courts in the Second Circuit and beyond have held that a wide range of technological measures not expressly incorporated in statute are “effective,” including password protection and validation keys.

So again, the impression we’re left with is the idea that if a website doesn’t directly expose a feature, any third party service that provides that feature may be circumventing a TPM and violating DMCA 1201? That can’t be the way the law works.

Here, the court then says (and I only wish I were kidding) that modifying a URL is bypassing a TPM. Let me repeat that: modifying a URL can be infringing circumvention under 1201. That’s… ridiculous.

Moreover, Yout’s technology clearly “bypasses” YouTube’s technological measures because it affirmatively acts to “modify[]” the Request URL (a.k.a. signature value), causing an end user to access content that is otherwise unavailable. … As explained, without modifying the signature value, there is no access to the allegedly freelyavailable downloadable files. Accordingly, I cannot agree with Yout that there is “nothing to circumvent.”

 

Then, as Professor Eric Goldman notes, the judge dismisses the 512(f) claims by saying that 512(f) doesn’t apply to DMCA 1201 claims. As you hopefully remember, 512(f) is the part of the DMCA that is supposed to punish copyright holders for sending false notices. In theory. In practice, courts have basically said that as long as the sender believes the notice is legit, it’s legit, and therefore there is basically never any punishment for sending false notices.

Saying that 512(f) only applies to 512 takedown notices, and not 1201 takedown notices is just yet another example of the inherent one-sidedness of the DMCA. For years, we’ve pointed out how ridiculous 1201 is, in which merely advertising tools that could be used to circumvent a technical protection measure is considered copyright infringement in and of itself — even if there’s no actual underlying infringement. Given how expansive 1201 is in favor of copyright holders, you’d think it only makes sense to say that bogus notices should face whatever tiny penalty might be available under 512(f), but the judge here says “nope.” As Goldman highlights, this will just encourage people to send takedowns where they don’t directly cite 512, knowing that it will protect them from 512(f) responses.

One other oddity that Goldman also highlights: most of the time if we’re thinking about 1201 circumvention, we’re talking about the copyright holder themselves getting upset that someone is routing around the technical barriers that they put up. But this case is different. YouTube created the technical barriers (I mean, it didn’t actually, but that’s what the court is saying it did), but YouTube is not a party to the lawsuit.

So… that raises a fairly disturbing question. Could the RIAA (or any copyright holder) sue someone for a 1201 violation for getting around someone else’s technical protection measures? Because… that would be weird. But parts of this decision suggest that it’s exactly what the judge envisions.

Yes, some may argue that this tool is somehow “bad” and shouldn’t be allowed. I disagree, but I understand where the argument comes from. But, even if you believe that, it seems like a ruling like this could still lead to all sorts of damage for various third party tools and services. The internet, and the World Wide Web were built to be module. It’s quite common for third party services to build tools and overlays and extensions and whatnot to add features to certain websites.

It seems crazy that this ruling seems to suggest that might violate copyright law.

Source: There Are All Sorts Of Problems With Ruling That YouTube Ripping Tool May Violate Copyright Law | Techdirt

The biggest problem is that if you don’t download the video to your device, you can’t actually watch it, so YouTube is designed to allow you to download the video.

[…]

George Washington University libraries have put out an alert to students and faculty that Wiley, one of the largest textbook publishers, has now removed 1,379 textbook titles that the library can lend out. They won’t even let the library purchase a license to lend out the ebooks. They will only let students buy the books.

Wiley will no longer offer electronic versions of these titles in the academic library market for license or purchase. To gain access to these titles, students will have to purchase access from vendors that license electronic textbooks directly to students, such as VitalSource, or purchase print copies. At most, GW Libraries can acquire physical copies for course reserve, which severely reduces the previous level of access for all students in a course.

This situation highlights how the behavior of large commercial publishers poses a serious obstacle to textbook affordability. In this case, Wiley seems to have targeted for removal those titles in a shared subscription package that received high usage. By withdrawing those electronic editions from the academic library market altogether, Wiley has effectively ensured that, when those titles are selected as course textbooks, students will bear the financial burden, and that libraries cannot adequately provide for the needs of students and faculty by providing shared electronic access. 

For years now, we’ve noted that if libraries didn’t already exist, you know that the publishers would scream loudly that they were piracy, and almost certainly block libraries from coming into existence. Of course, since we first noted that, the publishers seem to think they can and should just kill off libraries. They’ve repeatedly jacked up the prices on ebooks for libraries, making them significantly more expensive to libraries than print books, and putting ridiculous limitations on them. That is, when they even allow them to be lent out at all.

They’ve also sued the Internet Archive for daring to lend out ebooks of books that the Archive had in its possession.

And now they’re pulling stunts like this with academic libraries?

And, really, this is yet another weaponization of copyright. If it wasn’t an ebook, the libraries could just purchase copies of the physical book on the open market, and then lend it out. That’s what the first sale right enables. But the legacy copyright players made sure that the first sale right did not exist in the digital space, and now we get situations like this, where they get to dictate the terms over whether or not a library (an academic one at that) can even lend out a book.

This is disgusting behavior and people should call out Wiley for its decision here.

Source: Book Publishing Giant Pulls Nearly 1400 Ebook Titles From GW Library; Forcing Students To Buy Them Instead | Techdirt

On Friday, we wrote about hundreds of authors signing a letter calling out the big publishers’ attacks on libraries (in many, many different ways). The publishers pretend to represent the best interests of the authors, but history has shown over and over again that they do not. They represent themselves, and use the names of authors they exploit to claim the moral high ground they do not hold.

It’s no surprise, then, that the publishers absolutely fucking lost their shit after the letter came out. The Association of American Publishers put out a statement falsely claiming that the letter, put out by Fight for the Future (FftF), and signed by tons of authors from the super famous to the less well known, was actually “disinformation in the Internet Archive case.” And, look, if you’re at the point you’re blaming the Internet Archive for something another group actually did, you know you’ve lost, and you’re just lashing out.

Perhaps much more telling is that the Authors Guild actually put out an even more aggressive statement against Fight for the Future. Now, as best selling author Barry Eisler (who signed onto Fight for the Future’s letter) wrote write here on Techdirt years ago, it’s been clear for a while that the Authors Guild is not actually representing the best interests of authors. It has long been a front group for the publishers themselves.

The Authors Guild’s response to the FftF letter simply confirms this.

First, it claims that authors were misled into signing the letter by an earlier, different draft of the letter. This is simply false. The Authors Guild is making shit up because they just can’t believe that maybe authors actually support this.

They do name one author, Daniel Handler (aka Lemony Snicket), who had signed on, but removed his name before the letter was even published. But… I’m guessing the real reason that probably happened was that the publishers (who learned about the letter before it was published as proved by this email that was sent around prior to the release) FLIPPED OUT when they saw Handler’s name was on the letter. That’s because in their lawsuit against the Internet Archive’s open library project, they rely heavily on the claim that Lemony Snicket’s books are available there.

It seems reasonable to speculate that the publishers saw his name was on the letter, realized it undermined basically the crux of their case, and came down like a ton of bricks on him to pressure him into un-signing the letter. That story, at the very least, makes more sense than someone like Handler somehow being “tricked” into signing a letter that very clearly says what it says.

The Authors Guild’s other claims are equally sketchy.

The lawsuit against Open Library is completely unrelated to the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books. It is about Open Library’s attempt to stretch fair use to the breaking point – where any website that calls itself a library could scan books and make them publicly available – a practice engaged in by ebook pirates, not libraries.

This completely misrepresents what the Open Library does, and its direct parallel to any physical library, in that it buys a copy of a book and then can lend out that copy of the book. The courts have already established that scanning books is legal fair use — thanks to a series of cases the Authors Guild brought and lost (embarrassingly so) — and the Open Library then only allows a one-to-one lending of ebooks to actual books. It is functionally equivalent to any other library in any way.

And this is actually important, living at a time when these very same publishers are trying to use twisted interpretations of copyright law, to insist that they can limit how libraries buy and lend ebooks in ways that simply are not possible under the law with regular books.

Also, there’s this bit of nonsense:

The lawsuit is being brought only against IA’s Open Library; it will not impact in any way the Wayback Machine or any other services IA offers.

This is laughable. The lawsuit is asking for millions and millions of dollars from the Internet Archive. If it loses the case, there’s a very strong likelihood that the entire Internet Archive will need to shut down, because it will be unable to pay. Even if the Internet Archive could survive, the idea that this non-profit would be forced to fork over tens of millions of dollars wouldn’t have any impact on other parts of its offerings is laughable.

Fight for the Future has hit back at these accusations:

As expected, corporate publishing industry lobbyists have responded by attempting to undermine the demands of these authors by circulating false and condescending talking points, a frequent tactic lobbyists use to divert attention from the principled actions of activists.

The statement from the Authors Guild specifically asserts, without evidence, that “multiple authors” who signed this letter feel they were “misled”. This assertion is false and we challenge these lobbyists to either provide evidence for their claim or retract it. 

It’s repugnant for industry lobbying associations who claim to represent authors to dismiss the activism of author-signatories like Neil Gaiman, Chuck Wendig, Naomi Klein, Robert McNamee, Baratunde Thurston, Lawrence Lessig, Cory Doctorow, Annalee Newitz, and Douglas Rushkoff, or claim that these authors were somehow misled into signing a brief and clear letter issuing specific demands for the good of all libraries. Corporate publishing lobbyists are free to disagree with the views stated in our letter, but it’s unacceptable for them to make false claims about our organization or the authors who signed.

They also highlight how many authors who signed onto the letter talked about how proud they are that their books are available at the Internet Archive, which is not at all what you would expect if the Open Library was actually about “piracy.”

Author Elizabeth Kate Switaj said when signing: “My most recently published book is on the Internet Archive—and that delights me.”  Dan Gillmor said: “Big Publishing would outlaw public libraries if it could—or at least make it impossible for libraries to buy and lend books as they have traditionally done, to enormous public benefit—and its campaign against the Internet Archive is a step toward that goal.” Sasha Costanza-Cook called publisher’s actions against the Internet Archive “absolutely shameful” and Laura Gibbs said “it’s the library I use most, and I am proud to see my books there.”

They, also, rightly push back on the totally nonsense claims that FftF is “not independent” and is somehow a front for the Internet Archive. I know people at both organizations, and this assertion is laughable. The two organizations agree on many things, but are absolutely and totally independent. This is nothing but a smear from the Authors Guild which can’t even fathom that most authors don’t like the publishers or the way the Authors Guild has become an organization that doesn’t look out for the best interests of all authors, but rather just a few of the biggest names.

Source: Publishers Lose Their Shit After Authors Push Back On Their Attack On Libraries | Techdirt

A group of authors and other creative professionals are lending their names to an open letter protesting publishers’ lawsuit against the Internet Archive Library, characterizing it as one of a number of efforts to curb libraries’ lending of ebooks.

Authors including Neil Gaiman, Naomi Klein, and Cory Doctorow lent their names to the letter, which was organized by the public interest group Fight for the Future.

“Libraries are a fundamental collective good. We, the undersigned authors, are disheartened by the recent attacks against libraries being made in our name by trade associations such as the American Association of Publishers and the Publishers Association: undermining the traditional rights of libraries to own and preserve books, intimidating libraries with lawsuits, and smearing librarians,” the letter states.

A group of publishers sued the Internet Archive in 2020, claiming that its open library violates copyright by producing “mirror image copies of millions of unaltered in-copyright works for which it has no rights” and then distributes them “in their entirety for reading purposes to the public for free, including voluminous numbers of books that are commercially available.” They also contend that the archive’s scanning undercuts the market for e-books.

The Internet Archive says that its lending of the scanned books is akin to a traditional library. In its response to the publishers’ lawsuit, it warns of the ramifications of the litigation and claims that publishers “would like to force libraries and their patrons into a world in which books can only be accessed, never owned, and in which availability is subject to the rightsholders’ whim.”

The letter also calls for enshrining “the right of libraries to permanently own and preserve books, and to purchase these permanent copies on reasonable terms, regardless of format,” and condemns the characterization of library advocates as “mouthpieces” for big tech.

“We fear a future where libraries are reduced to a sort of Netflix or Spotify for books, from which publishers demand exorbitant licensing fees in perpetuity while unaccountable vendors force the spread of disinformation and hate for profit,” the letter states.

The litigation is in the summary judgment stage in U.S. District Court in New York.

Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins Publishers, John Wiley & Sons Inc and Penguin Random House are plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

[…]

Source: Authors Publish Letter Protesting Lawsuit Against Internet Library – Deadline

Last year, I tried to create a “test suite” of websites that any new internet regulation ought to be “tested” against. The idea was that regulators were so obsessively focused on the biggest of the big guys (i.e., Google, Meta) that they never bothered to realize how it might impact other decently large websites that involved totally different setups and processes. For example, it’s often quite impossible to figure out how a regulation about Google and Facebook content moderation would work on sites like Wikipedia, Github, Discord, or Reddit.

Last week, we called out that Texas’s HB 20 social media content moderation law almost certainly applies to sites like Wikipedia and Reddit, yet I couldn’t see any fathomable way in which those sites could comply, given that so much of the moderation on each is driven by users rather than the company. It’s been funny watching supporters of the law try to insist that this is somehow easy for Wikipedia (probably the most transparent larger site on the internet) to comply with by being “more transparent and open access.”

If you somehow can’t see that tweet or screenshot, it’s a Trumpist defender of the law responding to someone asking how Wikipedia can comply with the law, saying:

Wikipedia would have to offer more transparent and open access to their platform, which would allow truth to flourish over propaganda there? Is that what you’re worried about, or what is it?

To which a reasonably perplexed Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales rightly responds:

What on earth are you talking about? It’s like you are writing from a different dimension.

Anyway… it seems some folks on Reddit are realizing the absurdity of the law and trying to demonstrate it in the most internety way possible. Michael Vario alerts us that the r/PoliticalHumor subreddit is “messing with Texas” by requiring every comment to include the phrase “Greg Abbott is a little piss baby” or be deleted in a fit of content moderation discrimination in violation of the HB20 law against social media “censorship.”

Until further notice, all comments posted to this subreddit must contain the phrase “Greg Abbott is a little piss baby”

There is a reason we’re doing this, the state of Texas has passed H.B. 20, Full text here, which is a ridiculous attempt to control social media. Just this week, an appeals court reinstated the law after a different court had declared it unconstitutional. Vox has a pretty easy to understand writeup, but the crux of the matter is, the law attempts to force social media companies to host content they do not want to host. The law also requires moderators to not censor any specific point of view, and the language is so vague that you must allow discussion about human cannibalization if you have users saying cannibalization is wrong. Obviously, there are all sorts of real world problems with it, the obvious ones being forced to host white nationalist ideology or insurrectionist ideation. At the risk of editorializing, that might be a feature, not a bug for them.

Anyway, Reddit falls into a weird category with this law. The actual employees of the company Reddit do, maybe, one percent of the moderation on the site. The rest is handled by disgusting jannies volunteer moderators, who Reddit has made quite clear over the years, aren’t agents of Reddit (mainly so they don’t lose millions of dollars every time a mod approves something vaguely related to Disney and violates their copyright). It’s unclear whether we count as users or moderators in relation to this law, and none of us live in Texas anyway. They can come after all 43 dollars in my bank account if they really want to, but Virginia has no obligation to extradite or anything.

We realized what a ripe situation this is, so we’re going to flagrantly break this law. Partially to raise awareness of the bullshit of it all, but mainly because we find it funny. Also, we like this Constitution thing. Seems like it has some good ideas.

They also include a link to the page where people can file a complaint with the Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton, asking him to investigate whether the deletion of any comments that don’t claim that his boss, Governor Greg Abbott, is “a little piss baby” is viewpoint discrimination in violation of the law.

Source: Subreddit Discriminates Against Anyone Who Doesn’t Call Texas Governor Greg Abbott ‘A Little Piss Baby’ To Highlight Absurdity Of Content Moderation Law | Techdirt

The EU Copyright Directive contains one of the worst ideas in modern copyright: what amounts to a requirement to filter uploads on major sites.  Despite repeated explanations of why this would cause huge harm to both creators and members of the public, EU politicians were taken in by the soothing words of the legislation’s proponents, who even went so far as to deny that upload filters would be required at all.

The malign effects of the EU Copyright Directive have not yet been felt, as national legislatures struggle to implement a law with deep internal contradictions.  However, upload filters are already used on an ad hoc basis, for example YouTube’s Content ID.  There is thus already mounting evidence of the problems with the approach.   A new report, from the Colombian Fundación Karisma, adds to the concerns by providing additional examples of how creators have already suffered from upload filters:

This research found multiple cases of unjustified notifications of supposed violation of copyright directed at content that is either part of the public domain, original content, or instances of judicial overreach of copyright law. The digital producers that are the target of these unjust notifications affirm that the appeal process and counter-notification procedures don’t help them protect their rights. The appeals interface of the different platforms that were taken into account did not help resolve the cases, which leaves digital creators defenseless with no alternative other than what they can obtain from their contacts. This system damages the capacity of these producers to grow, maintain and monetize an audience at the same time that it affects the liberty of expression of independent producers as it creates a strong disincentive for them. On the contrary, this system incentivizes the bigger production companies to claim copyright on content to which they hold no rights.

As that summary notes, it’s not just that material was blocked without justification. Compounding the problem are appeal processes that are biased against creators, and a system that is rigged in favor of Big Content to the point where companies can falsely claim copyright on the work of others. The Fundación Karisma report is particularly valuable because it describes what has been happening in Colombia, rounding out other work that typically looks at the situation in the US and EU.

Source: Study Shows That Copyright Filters Harm Creators Rather Than Help Them | Techdirt