Podcasts about Digital Millennium Copyright Act

This Day in Legal History: WHO EstablishedOn April 7, 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) was officially established when its constitution entered into force, marking a pivotal moment in the development of international law. The creation of the WHO reflected a growing recognition among nations that public health challenges transcend borders and require coordinated legal and institutional responses. Its constitution set out a broad definition of health as a fundamental human right, helping to shape future legal frameworks and policy discussions worldwide. By joining the organization, member states accepted binding obligations, particularly in the areas of disease surveillance, reporting, and cooperation. These obligations were designed to promote transparency and rapid response to emerging health threats, which had historically spread unchecked due to limited coordination.The WHO's legal framework also empowered the organization to issue regulations and recommendations, including what would later become the International Health Regulations, a key tool in managing global health emergencies. This marked an important shift toward formalized international governance in public health, moving beyond informal cooperation to structured legal commitments. The constitution further established the World Health Assembly, giving member states a forum to negotiate and adopt health-related policies with legal and political significance. Over time, the WHO has played a central role in shaping international responses to pandemics, vaccination efforts, and health equity initiatives. Its authority, while not absolute, carries significant influence in both legal and diplomatic contexts.A group of YouTube creators has filed a proposed class action lawsuit against Amazon, alleging that the company improperly used their copyrighted videos to train its AI video-generation tool, Nova Reel. The plaintiffs claim Amazon bypassed YouTube's technological safeguards to access and download large amounts of video content without permission. According to the complaint, Amazon used automated scraping tools and techniques like rotating IP addresses to avoid detection while extracting videos at scale. The creators argue that this conduct violated both YouTube's terms of service and federal copyright law.The lawsuit specifically alleges violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, focusing on Amazon's alleged circumvention of technological protection measures designed to safeguard content. Plaintiffs claim their videos were then used for Amazon's commercial benefit in developing its AI system, without compensation or consent. They also argue that once content is used to train AI models, it cannot be effectively removed, causing lasting harm to creators. The complaint challenges Amazon's characterization of its training data as “publicly available,” arguing that availability does not equal lawful use.The creators seek to represent a nationwide class of individuals whose content may have been similarly used. They are asking for damages, injunctive relief, and a declaration that Amazon's actions were willful. The case highlights broader tensions between content creators and AI developers over data sourcing practices. Similar lawsuits have been filed against other AI companies, reflecting a growing wave of litigation in this area.YouTube Creators Say Amazon Scrapes Videos To Train AI - Law360The Supreme Court of the United States has sent a long-running lawsuit over alleged FBI surveillance of Muslims in Southern California back to a lower court for reconsideration. The case, brought by several individuals including Sheikh Yassir Fazaga, claims the FBI unlawfully monitored their community using an informant after 9/11. The justices did not rule on the merits but instead instructed the lower courts to revisit the case in light of new factual developments and the government's motion to dismiss.At the center of the dispute is the state secrets privilege, a legal doctrine that allows the government to block litigation if it risks exposing national security information. The FBI has argued that continuing the case could reveal sensitive intelligence methods and weaken this protection. Previously, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed parts of the lawsuit to move forward, reasoning that courts should not dismiss claims too early without fully examining whether secret evidence is truly necessary. The appellate court suggested possible ways to proceed while protecting classified information, such as limited judicial review of sensitive materials.The Supreme Court's earlier 2022 decision confirmed that the state secrets privilege applies but left open how it should be used in this case. The Ninth Circuit later revived some claims, while still dismissing others against individual agents. The government challenged that ruling, arguing it forces courts to rely on protected information in ways that undermine the privilege. Plaintiffs, however, maintain their case can proceed using non-classified evidence and that the subject matter itself is not a state secret.The remand keeps the case alive but unresolved, requiring the lower courts to reassess whether it can proceed without endangering national security. The outcome could shape how courts handle similar conflicts between civil rights claims and government secrecy.Justices Remand State Secrets Dispute In FBI Spying Case - Law360In my column for Bloomberg this week, I examine how a major IRS modernization effort fell short—not simply because of execution issues, but because of chronic underfunding. A recent report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration shows that funds from the Inflation Reduction Act that were intended for modernization were largely redirected to cover basic operations. Instead of transforming systems and rebuilding long-term capacity, the IRS used much of the money to sustain staffing and maintain existing IT infrastructure. In my view, this outcome was predictable given the agency's longstanding resource constraints.I explain how budget cuts and workforce reductions undermined the modernization initiative from the start. Even with new funding, the IRS still had to meet its core obligation of processing hundreds of millions of tax returns each year. Faced with those pressures, it prioritized immediate operational needs over long-term upgrades, including spending significant sums on routine IT maintenance. I also point out that contractor spending surged, reflecting a growing reliance on outside support rather than investment in internal expertise.The report highlights inefficiencies as well, including canceled or reworked contracts that consumed large amounts of funding without delivering meaningful results. At the same time, labor costs remained elevated due to the complexities of downsizing, creating a situation where the IRS was both shrinking its workforce and paying contractors to compensate for lost capacity. I argue that this pattern is better understood as institutional outsourcing rather than modernization.Ultimately, I contend that real modernization cannot occur without stable baseline funding for core operations. Without that foundation, any new investment will continue to be diverted toward keeping the agency running. My conclusion is that Congress attempted to modernize the IRS without first ensuring its institutional stability, making the outcome not just disappointing, but largely inevitable. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

-A 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled on Monday that New Jersey has no authority to regulate Kalshi's prediction market allowing people to bet on the outcome of sports events. That power rests with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the panel ruled 2-1. -The engineering problems reportedly cropped up during the device's early test production phase and may delay first shipments by months, according to multiple sources briefed on the matter. -According to the lawsuit, the creators behind h3h3 Productions, MrShortGameGolf and Golfholics have accused Apple of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by scraping copyrighted videos on YouTube to train its AI models. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

John is joined by Todd Anten, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office and co-chair of the firm's Trademark, Copyright, and Trade Secret practices, and Owen F. Roberts, partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office. They discuss a sixteen-year copyright dispute involving two appeals to the Second Circuit that centered on the scope of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe harbor provision. The plaintiffs were major music publishers and recording companies that own the copyrights to some of the world's most famous songs. The defendant, represented by a Quinn Emanuel team led by Todd and Owen, was Vimeo, a popular video hosting and video sharing platform. The plaintiffs alleged that Vimeo should be held liable for copyright infringement based on users who posted videos incorporating the plaintiffs' music without permission. The core issue was whether Vimeo was protected by the DMCA's safe harbor provisions, which shield platforms such as Vimeo from copyright liability for the acts of their users as long as they comply with certain requirements.Among those requirements are that: (1) the platform does not have “the right or ability to control” allegedly infringing activity; and (2) the platform removes user-posted videos upon receiving sufficient knowledge of infringement, for example, the receipt of a DMCA notice from the copyright holder, or “red flag” knowledge that a video is obviously infringing. The plaintiffs argued that Vimeo did not satisfy these requirements. First, they argued that Vimeo's voluntary internal moderation practices, such as the removal of unwanted videos, demonstrated that Vimeo controlled users' infringing activity. Second, although the plaintiffs never sent Vimeo a DMCA takedown notice, they argued that Vimeo staff's awareness that certain videos contained famous songs was enough to raise an inference of Vimeo's “red flag” knowledge, imposing a duty on Vimeo staff to remove such videos on sight. In its defense, Vimeo argued that voluntary removal of unwanted videos (for example, bullying, sexual content, or advertising) did not disqualify it from safe harbor eligibility because it is consistent with the sort of moderation that Congress encouraged in the statute. Vimeo further argued that an ordinary Vimeo employee could not reasonably know whether a video is “obviously” infringing on sight and that the plaintiffs were in fact seeking an end-run around the DMCA notice-and-takedown regime.The Second Circuit agreed with Vimeo. It first concluded in 2016 that mere awareness that a video contains a famous song is not enough to show that it is obviously infringing; it could be authorized or a fair use, which are fact-intensive determinations. As the Court noted, even judges and copyright scholars have difficulty assessing the boundaries of fair use. The Court emphasized that copyright holders were not without remedy—they could send DMCA takedown notices for expeditious removal, which is the deliberate bargain that Congress struck. In 2025, the Second Circuit further ruled that a platform does not forfeit safe harbor by voluntarily removing unwanted videos, as such activity does not rise to providing “substantial influence” in the creation of infringing videos, and such moderation is inherent in promoting the advancement of technology.These outcomes reinforce the importance of the DMCA's statutory notice-and-takedown regime, and underscore that a copyright holder's desire for a new system is an issue to bring to Congress, not to the courts.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Featuring: Sade Frazier, NextGen Committee Member and Attorney at Cahill Gordon & ReindelHost: Landis Barber, Safran Law OfficesIn this episode of Highlight Reel Headlines, host Landis Barber is joined by Sade Frazier of Cahill Gordon & Reindel to break down the sports law headlines from early March. The two begin with the WNBA's new collective bargaining agreement, examining the evolution of revenue sharing and player compensation. They then turn to college athletics, where 18 Nebraska football players are challenging the College Sports Commission's rejection of NIL deals. In addition, the episode explores ongoing conference realignment disputes involving Utah Valley University and Louisiana Tech University. From there, Landis and Sade discuss Wisconsin's proposed NIL legislation. Finally, the episode closes with a look at a copyright infringement lawsuit involving an iconic photograph of Pelé, unpacking the potential liability under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Join us as we roll through the headlines!

Intellectual Property: Does removing copyright management information from publicly available internet text for the purpose of training an AI model violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act? - Argued: Wed, 18 Mar 2026 17:34:38 EDT

Intellectual Property: Does removing copyright management information from open source code violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act when used to train AI models? - Argued: Wed, 11 Feb 2026 11:22:36 EDT

Jordan Harbinger Show: Read the notes at at podcastnotes.org. Don't forget to subscribe for free to our newsletter, the top 10 ideas of the week, every Monday --------- Remember when Facebook was fun and Google actually worked? Cory Doctorow coined a term for what went wrong, and he's here to explain how we fight back.Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1280What We Discuss with Cory Doctorow:"Enshittification" is Cory Doctorow's term for how platforms decay. First they're good to users, then they abuse users to serve business customers, then they abuse everyone to claw back value for themselves. Facebook, Amazon, and Google all followed this playbook — and policy makers let it happen."Switching costs" are a deliberate policy choice, not an inevitability. Companies jack up the friction of leaving their platforms through design and lobbying, but regulations like phone number portability prove we can legislate friction down when we choose to.The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes fixing things you own. Security researchers who expose corporate sabotage — like the Polish train company bricking locomotives to extort customers — face harsher legal consequences than actual pirates."Algorithmic wage discrimination" is surveillance capitalism's newest trick. Apps like Uber track how desperate workers are and pay them less accordingly — the more rides you accept, the lower your future offers, turning desperation into a permanent wage ceiling.You can fight back by supporting interoperability and making strategic choices. Use alternative services (like Kagi for search), follow advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org), and remember: every time you demand the right to own what you buy, you're pushing back against enshittification.And much more...And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors: Article: Visit article.com/jordan for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or moreBetterHelp: 10% off first month: betterhelp.com/jordanBombas: Go to bombas.com/jordan to get 20% off your first orderButcherBox: Free protein for a year + $20 off first box: butcherbox.com/jordanHomes.com: Find your home: homes.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Remember when Facebook was fun and Google actually worked? Cory Doctorow coined a term for what went wrong, and he's here to explain how we fight back.Full show notes and resources can be found here: jordanharbinger.com/1280What We Discuss with Cory Doctorow:"Enshittification" is Cory Doctorow's term for how platforms decay. First they're good to users, then they abuse users to serve business customers, then they abuse everyone to claw back value for themselves. Facebook, Amazon, and Google all followed this playbook — and policy makers let it happen."Switching costs" are a deliberate policy choice, not an inevitability. Companies jack up the friction of leaving their platforms through design and lobbying, but regulations like phone number portability prove we can legislate friction down when we choose to.The Digital Millennium Copyright Act criminalizes fixing things you own. Security researchers who expose corporate sabotage — like the Polish train company bricking locomotives to extort customers — face harsher legal consequences than actual pirates."Algorithmic wage discrimination" is surveillance capitalism's newest trick. Apps like Uber track how desperate workers are and pay them less accordingly — the more rides you accept, the lower your future offers, turning desperation into a permanent wage ceiling.You can fight back by supporting interoperability and making strategic choices. Use alternative services (like Kagi for search), follow advocates like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (eff.org), and remember: every time you demand the right to own what you buy, you're pushing back against enshittification.And much more...And if you're still game to support us, please leave a review here — even one sentence helps! Sign up for Six-Minute Networking — our free networking and relationship development mini course — at jordanharbinger.com/course!Subscribe to our once-a-week Wee Bit Wiser newsletter today and start filling your Wednesdays with wisdom!Do you even Reddit, bro? Join us at r/JordanHarbinger!This Episode Is Brought To You By Our Fine Sponsors: Article: Visit article.com/jordan for $50 off your first purchase of $100 or moreBetterHelp: 10% off first month: betterhelp.com/jordanBombas: Go to bombas.com/jordan to get 20% off your first orderButcherBox: Free protein for a year + $20 off first box: butcherbox.com/jordanHomes.com: Find your home: homes.comSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In 1998, the United States Congress tried to tame the wild internet with a new law: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But buried in its fine print was a provision that would end up giving tech giants ultimate legal protection and control, and stop innovators from fixing what's broken. Host Cory Doctorow traces how a law written for a different era led to the arrest of a researcher, became the playbook for Meta's enshittification, and lets platforms degrade your online life today — protecting them while they do it.  Guests in this episode include Seth Schoen and Pam Samuelson. Archival recordings feature Dmitry Sklyarov, Bruce Lehman, Al Gore, and Steve Sipress. 

Ralph and the team invite cofounder of RootsAction, Norman Solomon, to autopsy the carcass of the Democratic Party after Donald Trump's decisive defeat of Kamala Harris in the presidential election. They dissect what happened on November 5th and report what needs to be done about it. Norman Solomon is co-founder of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. He is the author of War Made Easy, Made Love, Got War, and his newest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine.The Democrats couldn't even get their base vote out that they got out in 2020. And what are they looking at? Are they looking at themselves in the mirror for introspection? Are they cleaning house? Do they have any plan whatsoever— other than collect more and more money from corporate PACS? This is a spectacular decline.Ralph NaderWe kept being told that party loyalty über alles, we had to stay in line with Biden. And…that lost precious months, even a year or a year and a half, when there could have been a sorting out in vigorous primaries. We were told that, "Oh, it would be terrible to have an inside-the-party primary system." Well, in 2020, there were 17 candidates, so there wasn't space on one stage on one night to hold them all—the debates would have to be in half. Well, it didn't really debilitate the party. Debate is a good thing. But what happened was this party loyalty, this obsequious kissing-the-presidential-feet dynamic allowed Biden to amble along until it became incontrovertible that he wasn't capable.Norman SolomonA lot of people on that committee—and of course, running the DNC—they and their pals had this pass-through of literally millions of dollars of consultant fees. Win, lose, or draw. It's like General Dynamics and Northrop Grumman, they never lose a war. And so, these corporate donors, they never lose a presidential race. They didn't lose what happened with Harris and Trump. They cashed in, they made out like the corporate bandits that they are.Norman SolomonOne reality as an activist that I've come to the conclusion on in the last couple of decades is that progressives tend to be way too nice to Democrats in Congress, especially those that they consider to be allies. Because they like what some of the Democrats do…and so they give too many benefits of the doubt. It's like grading them on a curve. We can't afford to grade them on a curve.Norman SolomonIn Case You Haven't Heard with Francesco DeSantisNews 11/6/241. As of now, Donald Trump is projected to win the 2024 presidential election by a greater margin than 2016. In addition to winning back Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia and Arizona, Trump also appears to have flipped Nevada – which went for both Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. Most shocking of all, Trump has won the national popular vote, something he failed to do in 2016 and 2020 and which no Republican has done in 20 years. Democrats also faced a bloodbath in the Senate elections, with Republicans on track to win a 54 seat majority in the upper chamber.2. Bucking tremendous party pressure, Representative Rashida Tlaib declined to endorse Kamala Harris at a United Autoworkers rally in Michigan just days before the election, POLITICO reports. Tlaib urged attendees to turn out but “kept her speech focused on down-ballot races.” Tlaib is the only member of “the Squad” to withhold her support for Harris and the only Palestinian member of Congress. She has been a staunch critic of the Biden Administration's blind support for Israel's campaign of genocide in Palestine and voted Uncommitted in the Michigan Democratic primary.3. Along similar lines, the Uncommitted Movement issued a fiery statement on the eve of the election. According to the group, “Middle East Eye ran a story…[which] contains unfounded and absurd claims, suggesting that Uncommitted made a secret agreement with the Democratic Party to not endorse a third-party candidate.” The statement goes on to say that “this baseless story…is misguided at best and a dishonest malicious attack at worst.” Uncommitted maintains that “leaders and delegates are voting in different ways, yet remain untied in their mission to stop the endless flow of American weapons fueling Israel's militarism.” In September, Uncommitted publicly stated that they would not endorse Kamala Harris, citing her continued support for the Biden Administration policy toward Israel, but urged supporters to vote against Donald Trump.4. Progressive International reports that over 50 sovereign nations have called for an immediate arms embargo on Israel, calling it “a legal, humanitarian and moral imperative to put an end to grave human suffering.” This letter cites the “staggering toll of civilian casualties, the majority of them children and women, due to ongoing breaches of international law by Israel, the occupying Power,” and warns of “regional destabilization that risks the outbreak of an all-out war in the region.” Signatories on this letter include Turkey, Egypt, Jordan, Norway, Mexico, South Africa, Brazil, Cuba, Bolivia, and China among many others.5. Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush have sent a letter to President Biden accusing him of illegally involving the American armed forces in Israel's war without proper Congressional authorization. Per the accompanying statement, “The Biden administration has deepened U.S. involvement in the Israeli government's devastating regional war through comprehensive intelligence sharing and operational coordination, and now even the direct deployment of U.S. servicemembers to Israel. Not only do these actions encourage further escalation and violence, but they are unauthorized by Congress, in violation of Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.” The letter concludes “The Executive Branch cannot continue to ignore the law…In the absence of an immediate ceasefire and end of hostilities, Congress retains the right and ability to exercise its Constitutional authority to direct the removal of any and all unauthorized Armed Forces from the region pursuant to Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution.” This letter was endorsed by an array of groups ranging from the Quincy Institute to Jewish Voice for Peace to the Presbyterian and Methodist Churches, and signed by other pro-Palestine members of Congress including Ilhan Omar, Summer Lee, and André Carson – though notably not AOC.6. In a story that touches on both the election and labor issues, the New York Times Tech Guild voted to go on strike Monday morning. The Times Tech Guild, which represents “workers like software developers and data analysts,” at the Times negotiated until late Sunday night, particularly regarding “whether the workers could get a ‘just cause' provision in their contract…pay increases and pay equity; and return-to-office policies,” per the New York Times. The Guardian reports “The Tech Guild's roughly 600 members are in charge of operating the back-end systems that power the paper's…[coverage of] the presidential election between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – but also the hundreds of House and dozens of Senate races across the US that will determine who will secure control of Washington in 2025.” Kathy Zhang, the guild's unit chair, said in a statement “[The Times] have left us no choice but to demonstrate the power of our labor on the picket line…we stand ready to bargain and get this contract across the finish line.”7. In more labor news, AP reports the striking Boeing machinists have “voted to accept a contract offer and end their strike after more than seven weeks, clearing the way for the aerospace giant to resume production.” The deal reportedly includes “a 38% wage increase over four years, [as well as] ratification and productivity bonuses.” That said, Boeing apparently “refused to meet strikers' demand to restore a company pension plan that was frozen nearly a decade ago.” According to a Bank of America analysis, Boeing was losing approximately $50 million per day during the strike, a startling number by any measure. The union's District 751 President Jon Holden told members “You stood strong and you stood tall and you won,” yet calibration specialist Eep Bolaño said the outcome was “most certainly not a victory…We were threatened by a company that was crippled, dying, bleeding on the ground, and us as one of the biggest unions in the country couldn't even extract two-thirds of our demands from them. This is humiliating.”8. Huffington Post Labor Reporter Dave Jamieson reports “The [National Labor Relations Board] has filed a complaint against Grindr alleging the dating app used a new return-to-office policy to fire dozens of workers who were organizing.” He further reports that NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo is seeking a “Cemex order” which would “force the company to bargain with the [Communications Workers of America].” In a statement, CWA wrote “We hope this NLRB filing sends a clear message to Grindr that…we are committed to negotiating fair working conditions in good faith. As we continue to build and expand worker power at Grindr, this win…is a positive step toward ensuring that Grindr remains a safe, inclusive, and thriving place for users and workers alike.”9. In further positive news from federal regulators, NBC's Today reports “On Oct. 25, the United States Copyright Office granted a copyright exemption that gives restaurants like McDonald's the “right to repair” broken machines by circumventing digital locks that prevent them from being fixed by anyone other than its manufacturer.” As this piece explains, all of McDonald's ice cream machines – which have become a punchline for how frequently they are out of service – are owned and operated by the Taylor Company since 1956. Moreover “The…company holds a copyright on its machines…[meaning] if one broke, only [Taylor Company] repair people were legally allowed to fix it…due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act…a 1998 law that criminalizes making or using technology, devices or services that circumvent the control access of copyrighted works.” This move from the Copyright Office reflects a larger pattern of regulators recognizing the issues with giving companies like Taylor monopolistic free reign over sectors of the economy and blocking consumers – in this case fast food franchisees – from repairing machines themselves. With backing from public interest groups like U.S. PIRG, the Right to Repair movement continues to pick up steam. We hope Congress will realize that this is a political slam dunk.10. Finally, in an astounding story of vindication, Michael and Robert Meeropol – sons of Ethel Rosenberg, who was convicted of and executed for passing secrets to the Soviet Union – claim that long-sought records have definitively cleared their mother's name. Per Bloomberg, “A few months ago, the National Security Agency sent the Meeropols a box of records the spy agency declassified…Inside was a seven-page handwritten memo…The relevant passage…is just eight words: ‘she did not engage in the work herself.'” Put simply, Rosenberg was wrongfully convicted and put to death for a crime she did not commit. The article paints the picture of the men uncovering this key piece of evidence. “After he read it, Robert said his eyes welled up. “Michael and I looked at it and our reaction was, ‘We did it.'”This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

Can AI take over the roles of creative professionals, and what are the scariest tech trends we should be wary of this Halloween? As we uncover the answers, we're joined by Nick Espinosa, who shares his insights into the eerie world of modern technology. From Netflix's Moments feature, which promises much more than it delivers, to the haunting possibility of hacked robot vacuums communicating beyond the grave, there's no shortage of tech horror stories to keep you on the edge of your seat. Gwen Way also brings a gadget that blurs the line between tricks and treats, adding to our Halloween-themed tech tales.Expect a whirlwind of unsettling tales as we explore the controversies surrounding AI replacing journalists at a Polish radio station. This chapter raises important questions about the future of human roles in the creative industry. Plus, a peculiar story from a Chinese aquarium leads us to discuss the chasm between reality and expectations, as visitors find themselves let down by a supposedly giant shark exhibit. Meanwhile, the hacking of Chinese-made EcoVax robot vacuums on American soil becomes a chilling reminder of the vulnerabilities that lurk in the gadgets we rely on.As we wrap up, heed our warnings about cybersecurity risks during the holiday season, with cybercriminals refining their tactics to outsmart us. We reflect on the impact of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and celebrate significant milestones in internet history. For our whiskey enthusiasts, Michter's US*1 Barrel Strength Rye 2024 whiskey makes a surprising appearance, proving to be a treat rather than a trick. Join us for a thrilling mix of tech, tales, and tastings as we celebrate the spooky season and ponder the future of our digital world.

Movie piracy has hurt the pockets of every filmmaker. But indie filmmakers are often affected worse. Today on the show we have Evan Zeisel and he has been systematically tracking down piracy sites for years. Ten years ago, Evan made his first feature film and landed a distributor. Within a week of being on its first VOD site, his film was already popping up on numerous piracy sites.  He quickly learned through rigorous research to combat piracy and copyright infringement through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, of 1998.Basically, the DMCA instrument protects copyright holders from piracy or infringement and it protects the First Amendment of users who, unknowing of the illegality, uses copyrighted contents online for commercial purposes. How do you counter online piracy and what is the DMCA?The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a U.S. law enacted in 1998 in an effort to combat piracy while also protecting freedom of speech. The pitfall of the DMCA is that in order to “protect” free speech, it notes that any content put online is considered not to be copyright infringement unless the copyright holder, or representative thereof, directly informs the site or the individual who posted the content that the content is indeed copyrighted.After being informed, the site has “a reasonable amount of time” (deemed 48-72 hours, by de facto enforcement by the courts) to remove the content before it is considered to be an illegal act. What this means is that a content creator needs to find every occurrence of infringement on the Internet and then find the site's contact information, or Web Host/ISP's contact information, and send a very specifically formatted letter (as defined by the DMCA) to that contact, before it will ever be considered needed to be taken down.Once received, if the content is not removed, then the content creator can use the Violation Notice sent, and a screenshot of the piracy, as a basis for legal action.The issue is, attorneys cost money and there is an endless number of sites pirating content, so for the standard copyright holder taking legal action would be a Sisyphean act, costing them endless time and money, only to run up against pirates that hide behind fake email addresses and false contact information. A lot has changed in the computer and Internet world in the last 20+ years since the DMCA was enacted.Evan dissects in this interview the technicalities in reclaiming copyright, contacting violators, the language, or must-mentions required by the act. Evan tackles the mechanical challenges of tracking down his contents on piracy sites through an automated system, Copyright Slap, curated with help from a friend of his with a coding background, to efficiently contact these sites and have contents taken down in seconds. To date, they have identified the 1946 sites and taken down 6212.Every filmmaker, big and small deals with online piracy. Hopefully, this episode can help.Enjoy my conversation with Evan Zeisel.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/bulletproof-screenwriting-podcast--2881148/support.

You do not have the right to repair your own belongings because of intellectual property rights granted to corporations by Congress in 1998. In this episode, listen to the debate happening in Congress about if and how they should grant customers the right to repair and get a status update on the multiple efforts under way in the current Congress, including one with a good chance of becoming law. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes McDonald's Ice Cream Machines Andy Greenberg. December 14, 2023. Wired. Joseph Fawbush. March 29, 2022. FindLaw. John Deere Luke Hogg. January 8, 2024. Reason. Internet of Things Updates and Maintenance Márk Szabó. August 27, 2024. WeLiveSecurity. Massachusetts Auto Repair Law Massachusetts Office of the Attorney General. DoD's Revolving Door OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Karl Evers-Hillstrom and Reid Champlin. June 18, 2019. OpenSecrets. OpenSecrets. Salary.com. Military Right to Repair Issues Kyle Mizokami. February 11, 2020. Popular Mechanics. Max Finkel. February 8, 2020. Jalopnik. Elle Ekman. November 20, 2019. The New York Times. Lucas Kunce and Elle Ekman. September 15, 2019. Technological Protection Measures (TPMs) Jennifer Zerkee. November 8, 2023. Simon Fraser University. Cyber Risks Sam Curry et al. January 3, 2023. samcurry.net. Apple Lawsuit Brandon Vigliarolo. December 18, 2023. The Register. NDAA Sec. 828 Jason Koebler. August 28, 2024. 404 Media. AdvaMed et al. July 30, 2024. DocumentCloud via 404 Media. Laws Bills Sec. 828 : REQUIREMENT FOR CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE ACCESS TO REPAIR MATERIALS. Fair Repair Act Audio Sources May 16, 2024 Senate Armed Services Committee Witnesses: Carlos Del Toro, Secretary of the Navy Clip Sen. Elizabeth Warren: So the Navy acquires everything from night vision goggles to aircraft carriers through contracts with big defense contractors, but the contractors often place restrictions on these deals that prevent service members from maintaining or repairing the equipment, or even let them write a training manual without going back through the contractor. Now the contractors say that since they own the intellectual property and the technical data underlying the equipment, only they have the right to repair that equipment. These right to repair restrictions usually translate into much higher costs for DOD, which has no choice but to shovel money out to big contractors whenever DOD needs to have something fixed. So take the Navy's littoral combat ship, General Dynamics and Lockheed Martin considered much of the data and equipment on the ship to be proprietary, so the Navy had to delay missions and spend millions of dollars on travel costs, just so that contractor affiliated repairmen could fly in, rather than doing this ourselves. Secretary Del Toro, when a sailor isn't allowed to repair part of their ship at sea, and a marine isn't allowed to access technical data to fix a generator on a base abroad. One solution is for the Navy to buy the intellectual property from the contractors. So can you say a little bit about what the benefits are of the Navy having technical rights for the equipment that it has purchased. Sec. Carlos Del Toro: The benefits are enormous, Senator, and we've actually had tremendous success, I'd say, in the last year and a half to two years, through the taxpayer advocacy program that we initiated when I came in. There have been three examples, one, gaining the intellectual property rights for the new ACV class of ships that will replace the AAVs. The F-35 negotiations really proved themselves out in a significant way as well, too. And lastly, the 20 F-18s that the Congress authorized in ‘22 and ‘23, we were able to make significant gains in terms of the government finally getting the intellectual property rights that were necessary for us to be able to properly sustain those moving forward. Sen. Elizabeth Warren: So I am very, very glad to hear this. I like the taxpayer advocacy project and how you're training contract officers to secure technical equipment that the Navy buys, but I think you should have the support of Congress on this. Senator Braun and I have introduced the Stop price gouging the military act to give DoD more tools to get cost and pricing data so that you will be in a better position to negotiate better deals with contractors. There's also more that we can do to ensure that the Navy and the rest of the services have the rights they need to bolster readiness. So let me ask you, Secretary Del Toro, would having a stronger focus on right to repair issues during the acquisition process, like prioritizing contract bids that give DoD fair access to repair materials, and ensuring that contract officers are looking into buying technical rights early on, would that help the Navy save costs and boost readiness at the same time? Sec. Carlos Del Toro: Very much. Senator, in fact, one of the things that we have prioritized since I came in as Secretary of the Navy, given my acquisition background, is actually those negotiations need to happen as early as possible before that we even as we develop the acquisition strategy for that contract to go out to bid, and by doing so, we will reap tremendous returns. July 18, 2023 House Judiciary Committee Witnesses: Aaron Perzanowski, Thomas W. Lacchia Professor of Law, University of Michigan Law School , Legal Fellow, Hudson Institute's Forum for Intellectual Property Kyle Wiens, Co-founder and CEO, iFixit Paul Roberts, Founder, SecuRepairs.org; Founder and Editor-in-Chief, the Security Ledger Scott Benavidez, Chairman, Automotive Service Association; Owner, Mr. B's Paint & Body Shop Clips 41:25 Scott Benavidez: My name is Scott Benavidez. I'm the Chairman of the Automotive Service Association's Board of Directors. I am also a second generation shop owner from Albuquerque, New Mexico, Mr. B's Paint and Body Shop. Scott Benavidez: We do have concerns when some insurers insist on repairs that are simply cheaper and quicker, without regard to quality and safety. Repairers understand better than anyone the threat of replacement crash parts or lesser quality. We can and should have a competitive marketplace that doesn't compromise quality or safety, deciding to only cover the cheapest option without understanding implications for quality leaves collision shops and their customers in a tough position. Very few consumers have the knowledge about these types of crash parts used on their vehicles as numerous crash parts in the marketplace, such as OEM (original equipment manufactured) parts, certified aftermarket parts, aftermarket parts, reconditioned crash parts, and recycled crash parts. Repairers can make recommendations, but their customers are unlikely to hear if the insurance won't cover them. 46:45 Paul Roberts: My name is Paul Roberts, and I'm the founder of Secure Repairs. We're an organization of more than 350 cyber security and information technology professionals who support the right to repair. 46:55 Paul Roberts: I'm speaking to you today on behalf of our members to make clear that the fair access to repair materials sought by right to repair laws does not increase cyber risk, and in fact, it can contribute to a healthier and more secure ecosystem of smart and connected devices. Paul Roberts: Proposed right to repair legislation considered by this Congress, such as the Repair Act, or last session, the Fair Repair Act, simply asks manufacturers that already provide repair information and tools to their authorized repair providers to also provide them at a fair and reasonable price to the owners of the devices and to third parties that they may wish to hire to do their work. 47:35 Paul Roberts: By definition, the information covered by right to repair laws is not sensitive or protected, as evidenced by the fact that the manufacturers already distribute it widely to hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of workers for their authorized repair providers. This could be everyone from mechanics working at auto dealerships to the folks staffing the Geek Squad at Best Buy. 48:00 Paul Roberts: Also, we have yet to find any evidence that the types of information covered by right to repair laws like schematic diagrams, service manuals, diagnostic software and replacement parts act as a portal to cyber attacks. The vast majority of attacks on internet connected devices - from broadband routers to home appliances to automobiles - today exploit weaknesses in the embedded software produced and distributed by the manufacturers, or alternatively, weak device configurations so they're deployed on the internet in ways that make them vulnerable to attack. These security weaknesses are an epidemic. A recent study of the security of Internet of Things devices, by the company Phosphorus Labs, or a cybersecurity company, found that 68% of Internet of Things devices contained high risk or critical software vulnerabilities. As an example, I'd like to call attention to the work of a group of independent researchers recently led by Sam Curry, who published a report, and you can Google this, "Web Hackers vs. the Auto Industry" in January 2023. That group disclosed wide ranging and exploitable flaws in vehicle telematics systems from 16 different auto manufacturers. At a leading GPS supplier to major automakers, the researchers claimed to obtain full access to a company-wide administration panel that gave them the ability to send arbitrary commands to an estimated 15.5 million vehicles, including vehicles used by first responders, police, fire and so on. Hacks like this take place without any access to repair materials, nor is there any evidence that providing access to repair software will open the doors to new attacks. 50:05 Paul Roberts: For the last 25 years, Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has given manufacturers an incentive to deploy software locks widely and to limit access to security researchers. That's kind of a model what we call in cybersecurity, security through obscurity. In other words, by keeping the workings of something secret, you're making it secure. But in fact, that doesn't work, because cyber criminals are very resourceful and they're very determined, and they don't really care what the law says. 50:35 Paul Roberts: Section 1201 has also enabled what one researcher has described as dark patterns in the design and manufacture of hardware that includes everything from locking out customers from access to administrative interfaces, administrative features of the products that they own, as well as practices like part pairing, which Kyle will talk to you more about, in which manufacturers couple replaceable components like screens and sensors and cameras to specific device hardware. Such schemes make manufacturers and their authorized repair providers gatekeepers for repairs, and effectively bar competition from the owners of the devices as well as independent repair providers. 54:45 Kyle Wiens: You think about what is local? What is American? Main Street you have a post office and a repair shop. And unfortunately, we've seen the whittling down of Main Street as the TV repair shops went away when the manufacturers cut off access to schematics, as the camera repair shops went away when Nikon and Canon decided to stop selling them parts. We've seen this systematically across the economy. In the enterprise space, you have Oracle and IBM saying that you can't get security updates to critical cyber infrastructure unless you buy a service contract with them, so they're tying long term service contracts with the security updates that are necessary to keep this infrastructure secure. 56:45 Kyle Wiens: Over the last decade plus, I've been working on Section 1201, trying to get exemptions for the ability to repair products. The challenge that we've had in the section 1201 process every triennial I go back and we ask for permission to be able to fix our own things is that the exemptions we've gotten really only apply to individual consumers. They aren't something that I could use to make a tool to provide to one of you to fix yourself. So in order for someone to take advantage of a 1201 exemption that we have, they have to be a cybersecurity researcher and able to whittle their own tools and use it themselves, and that just doesn't scale. 57:45 Devlin Hartline: My name is Devlin Hartline, and I'm a legal fellow at the Hudson Institute's forum for intellectual property. 57:50 Devlin Hartline: I'd like to start with a question posed by the title of this hearing, is there a right to repair? And the answer is clearly no. A right is a legally enforceable claim against another, but the courts have not recognized that manufacturers have the duty to help consumers make repairs. Instead, the courts have said that while we have the ability to repair our things, we also have the duty not to infringe the IP rights in the process. So it is in fact, the manufacturers who have the relevant rights, not consumers. 58:30 Devlin Hartline: Right to repair supporters want lawmakers to force manufacturers to make the tools, parts, and know-how needed to facilitate repairs available to consumers and independent repair shops. And the assumption here is that anything standing in the way of repair opportunities must necessarily harm the public good, but these tools, parts and know-how, are often protected by IP rights such as copyrights and design patents. And we protect copyrighted works and patented inventions because, as the Constitution recognizes, this promotes the public good. We reward creators and innovators as an incentive for them to bring these things to the marketplace and the public benefits from the introduction of new products and services that increase competition. Thus, the right to repair movement isn't based on a pre-existing right. It's instead asking lawmakers to create a new right at the expense of the existing rights of IP owners. 1:00:45 Devlin Hartline: IP owners are merely exercising their federally protected IP rights, and this is not actionable anti-competitive conduct. It is instead how the IP system is supposed to work. We grant IP owners exclusive rights so they can exclude others, and this, in turn, promotes the investments to create and to commercialize these creative innovations in the marketplace, and that promotes the public good. Aaron Perzanowski: My name is Aaron Perzanowski. I am a professor of law at the University of Michigan, and for the last 15 years, my academic research has focused on the intersection of personal and intellectual property rights in the digital economy. During that time, the right to repair has emerged as a central challenge to the notion that we as consumers control the devices that we buy. Instead consumers, farmers, small businesses, all find that manufacturers exert post-sale control over these devices, often in ways that frustrate repair. Aaron Perzanowski: Repair is as old as humanity. Our Paleolithic ancestors repaired hand axes and other primitive tools, and as our technologies have grown more complex, from the Bronze Age through the Renaissance, to the high tech devices that we all have in our pockets here today, repair has always kept pace. But today, manufacturers are employing a range of strategies that restrict repair, from their hardware and software design choices to clamp downs on secondary markets, and we also troublingly see attempts to leverage IP rights as tools to restrict repair. These efforts are a major departure from the historical treatment of repair under the law, the right to repair is not only consistent with nearly two centuries of IP law in the United States, it reflects half a millennium of common law property doctrine that rejects post-sale restrictions on personal property as early as the 15th century. English property law recognized that once a property owner sells an item, efforts to restrain how the new owner of that item can use it are inconsistent with the essential nature of private property and obnoxious to public policy. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, IP laws' respect for the property interests of purchasers of copyrighted and patented goods was profoundly shaped by this common law tradition. In 1850, the Supreme Court recognized that the repair of a patented machine reflected "no more than the exercise of that right of care, which everyone may use to give duration to that which he owns." A century later, the Court held that the repair of a convertible car roof was justified as an exercise of "the lawful right of the property owner to repair his property." And just a few years ago, the court reaffirmed the rejection of post-sale restrictions under patent law in Impression Products vs. Lexmark, a case about refurbishing printer ink cartridges. Copyright law, not surprisingly, has had fewer occasions to consider repair restrictions. But as early as 1901, the Seventh Circuit recognized "a right of repair or renewal under US copyright law." When a publisher sued to prevent a used book dealer from repairing and replacing damaged components of books, the court said that "the right of ownership in the book carries with it and includes the right to maintain the book as nearly as possible in its original condition." A century after that, Congress itself acknowledged repair as a right that owners enjoy, regardless of copyright restrictions, when it enacted section 117 C of the Copyright Act. That provision was designed to undo a Ninth Circuit decision that allowed copyright holders to prevent third party repairs of computers. Section 117 C explicitly permits owners of machines to make copies of computer programs in the course of maintenance or repair. And finally, the US Copyright Office over the last decade has repeatedly concluded that diagnosis, repair, and maintenance activities are non-infringing when it comes to vehicles, consumer devices, and medical equipment. So the right to repair is firmly rooted in basic principles of US IP law. Aaron Perzanowski: Section 1201 of the DMCA makes it practically impossible for consumers to exercise their lawful right to repair a wide range of devices, from tractors to home electronics, even though the copyright office says those activities are not infringing, and the weakening of standards for design patents allow firms to choke off the supply of replacement parts needed to repair vehicles, home appliances, and other devices. Aaron Perzanowski: One way to think about a right is as an affirmative power to force someone else to engage in some behavior, and in some cases, that is what we're talking about. We're talking about imposing, especially on the state level, regulations that impose requirements on manufacturers. I think that's true of the Repair Act on the federal level as well. But, I think part of what we also need to keep in mind is that sometimes what you need to effectuate a right is to eliminate barriers that stand in the way of that right. So we can think about this, I think, helpfully in the context of tools that enable people to engage in repair. The state level solution has been to require manufacturers to give their own tools to repair shops, sometimes compensated under fair and reasonable terms. The other solution would be to change section 1201 to say, let's allow independent repair shops to make their own tools. I think both of those solutions have some value to them. I also think it's really important to keep in mind that when we're talking about IP rights, there are always multiple sets of interests at stake, and one of the key balances that IP law has always tried to strike is the balance between the limited statutory exclusive rights that the Patent and Copyright Acts create and the personal property rights of consumers who own these devices. And so I think a balancing is absolutely necessary and appropriate. 1:15:20 Aaron Perzanowski: I think the best solution for Section 1201 is embodied in a piece of legislation that Representatives Jones and Spartz introduced in the last Congress, which would create a permanent exception to Section 1201 for repair that would apply not only to the act of circumvention, but would also apply to the creation and distribution of tools that are useful for repair purposes that does not open the door to broad, unrestrained, creation of circumvention tools, but tools that are that are targeted to the repair market. 1:16:40 Devlin Hartline: He cited a case about where you can repair a cover on a book. That's very different than recreating the book, every single word in it, right? So there's a difference between repairing something and then crossing the line into violating the exclusive rights of IP owners in the patented product or the copyrighted book. And so the things that repair supporters are asking for is that, if somebody has a design patent that covers an auto body part, well, they have the right to exclude other people from making that part, but repair supporters say they shouldn't have that exclusive right, because, you know, we could increase competition if we just took away their design patent and now other people could make that part, and so that's competition. But that's not the type of competition that IP law and competition law seek to support. That's like saying, if we just let the Pirate Bay copy and distribute all of the Disney blockbuster movies, then that's competition, and prices would go down. But that's not the way that we do it, right? So competition means other people come up with new products and new services, and so that's what we should be trying to support. 1:26:45 Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY): Repair advocates argue that section 1201, prevents non-infringing circumvention of access controls for purposes. But Congress contemplated this use when it passed the DMCA in 1998, allowing for a triennial exemption process. Is the exemption process working as intended? And if not, are there actions Congress can take to expand exemptions or make them easier to acquire? Devlin Hartline: What's important about the triennial rulemaking is that the proponent of an exemption has to come forward with evidence and demonstrate that there's actually a problem and it relates to a certain class of works, and then they can get a temporary exemption for three years. And so it is true that the Librarian of Congress, the last few rulemakings, has said that because using a copyrighted work in a way for repair, maintenance, etc, is Fair Use that they grant these exemptions. But these exemptions are quite narrow. They do not allow the trafficking of the computer programs that can crack the TPMs. And so it's very narrowly done. And the concern is that if you were to create a permanent exemption that opens things all the way up with access controls, copy controls and trafficking thereof, is now you're getting to the point of why we even have these TPMs under 1201 in the first place, and that's because they guard against piracy. And so the concern is that you're opening the piracy floodgates. You make these devices less secure, and then content owners are going to be less likely to want to put their content on these devices. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): How does section 1201 of the DMCA impact the ability of consumers and independent repair shops to modify or repair devices that have proprietary software and data in the consumer electronics industry? Aaron Perzanowski: Thank you so much for the question. As we've been talking about the copyright office in 2015, 2018, 2021, and they're in the process for the current rulemaking, has determined that engaging in circumvention, the removal or bypassing of these digital locks for purposes of repair, is perfectly lawful behavior, but there is a major practical mismatch here between the legal rights that consumers enjoy under federal law today and their practical ability to exercise those rights. And that's because, as Devlin was just describing, the section 1201 rulemaking does not extend to the creation or distribution of tools, right? So I have the right under federal law, to remove the technological lock, say, on my video game console, if I want to swap out a broken disk drive. How do I do that? I'd like to think of myself as a pretty technologically sophisticated person. I don't have the first clue about how to do that. I need a person who can write that code, make that code available to consumers so that I can. All I'm trying to do is swap out a broken disk drive on my video game. But you would argue that code is proprietary, correct? So I'm talking here about a third party making their own code that is simply allowing me to engage in activity that the Copyright Office has repeatedly said is non-infringing. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): So you want to give them a map. Is that, essentially, what you're saying? Aaron Perzanowski: Absolutely, yes, I do. Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): Do trade secrets play a role in the right to repair debate? Aaron Perzanowski: There are occasions where trade secrets are important. I don't think in the context that we're talking about here with section 1201, that we're typically running into trade secret issues. The state-level bills that have been introduced do typically address trade secrets and often have carve outs there. And I think that's something worth considering in this debate. But I think it's important to keep in mind that just because we have some hypothetical worry about some unknown bad actor taking a tool that I use to fix my video game console -- Rep. Ben Cline (R-VA): It's not unknown. The Chinese do it all the time. Aaron Perzanowski: I don't think the Chinese are particularly worried about whether or not I can fix my video game console, and in fact, I think that point is important, but the bad actors already have these tools. All we're trying to do is get very targeted tools in the hands of law abiding citizens who just want to repair the stuff they buy for their kids for Christmas, right? If the Chinese are going to hack the PlayStation, they've already done it. 1:32:25 Aaron Perzanowski: So the 1201 process is what established the legality of circumvention for repair purposes. But when Congress created that rulemaking authority, it only extends to the act of circumvention, the actual removal. Congress did not give the [Copyright] Office or the Librarian [of Congress] the authority to grant exemptions to the trafficking provisions, and that's where I think legislative intervention is really important. 1:39:00 Kyle Wiens: One of the challenges was section 1201. It doesn't just ban repair tools, it also bans the distribution of cybersecurity tools. And so we've seen security researchers....Apple sued a company that made a security research tool under 1201 and that tool has markedly made the world more secure. It's very popular amongst government security researchers. So I think that's kind of the sweet spot is, allow some third party inspection. It'll make the product better. 1:41:25 Kyle Wiens: These ice cream machines are made by Taylor, and there is an incredibly complex, baroque set of touchscreens you have to go through. And then there's a service password you have to be able to get past in order to access the settings that really allow you to do what you want. And so, in an ideal world, you'd have an entrepreneur who would come along and make a tool to make it easier for McDonald's, maybe they could have an app on their phone that they could use to configure and help them diagnose and repair the machine. Unfortunately, the company who made that tool is struggling legally because of all these challenges across the board. If we had innovation outside of the manufacturers and to be able to develop new tools for fixing ice cream machines or anything else, you have a whole flowering ecosystem of repair tools right now. It doesn't exist. The US is like this black hole where innovation is banned in software repair. There's all kinds of opportunities I could see, I had a farmer ask me for help fixing his John Deere tractor, and I had to say, I can't do that particular repair because it's illegal. I'd love to build a cool app for helping him diagnose and fix his tractor and get back back in the field faster. We don't have that marketplace right now. It's like farmers have been forced to, like, use cracked Ukrainian versions of John Deere diagnostic software, right? Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So it's not just ice cream machines. I led off with that, but it's farmers, it's farm equipment, it's iPhones, it's somebody's Xbox, right? I mean, these are all things.... in your experience, what are the challenges that these customers and stakeholders face when they're trying to repair their own devices? What are some things that they face? Kyle Wiens: It's absolutely infuriating. So my friend, farmer in San Luis Obispo, Dave grows all kinds of amazing products. He has a $300,000 John Deere tractor, came to me and said, Hey, there's a bad sensor. It's going to take a week to get that sensor sent out from Indiana, and I need to use the tractor in that time. Will you help me bypass the sensor? I could hypothetically modify the software in the tractor to do that. Practically, I didn't have the legal ability, and so he had to go and rent an expensive tractor for the week. This is impacting people's lives every single day. 1:43:50 Rep. Russell Fry (R-SC): So, to pivot a little bit, what role do you see from a federal side, from legislation, and what specific measures do you think might be included in such legislation? Kyle Wiens: So we've seen the solutions being approached from two angles. At the state level, you have states saying John Deere and other manufacturers, if you have a dealership that has fancy tools, sell those tools to consumers and to independent shops, allow that competition. At the federal level, what we can do is enable a competitive marketplace for those tools. So rather than compelling John Deere to sell the tool, we can say, hey, it's legal for someone, an entrepreneur, to make a competing tool. And you have this in the car market. You can take your car down the AutoZone, you can buy a scan tool, plug it into your car, and it'll decode some of the error messages. Those tools exist on the auto market because we have a standard diagnostic interface on cars that you can access without circumventing a TPM. We don't have that for any other products. So another farmer in my town, he showed me how if he has a transmission go out on a truck, he can fix that. But if he has a transmission go out on his John Deere tractor, he can't. He can physically install the transmission, but he can't program it to make it work. I'd love to be able to make a software tool to enable him to replace his transmission. Aaron Perzanowski: So I think if we see passage of the SMART Act, we can anticipate significant reductions in the expenses associated with auto collision repairs. Estimates are that design patents on collision parts are responsible for about $1.5 billion in additional expenditures. We see price premiums on OEM parts over third party parts often reaching into like the 40% range, right? So these are pretty significant cost savings associated with that. Part of this problem, I think, does relate back to the kind of unique structure of this market. Most consumers are not paying out of pocket for collision repairs. Those costs are being covered by their auto insurance provider, and so the consumer doesn't see that the - I'm pulling this from memory, so don't hold me to this figure - but the side view mirror of a Ford Fiesta costing $1,500, that's not something that the consumer is confronted with, right? So this goes back to the question of notice. Do consumers know when they buy that vehicle that the repairs are going to be that expensive? I think in most cases, they don't. And so I think the SMART Act is a very targeted solution to this problem. I do think it's important to note that the design patent issue for replacement parts is not limited to the automotive industry. I think it's the most, I think that's the area where the problem is most pressing. But home appliances, consumer electronics, we see companies getting design patents on replacement water filters for refrigerators so that they can charge three times as much when the little light comes on on your fridge to tell you that your water might not be as clean as you want it to be. So I think we have to think about that problem across a range of industries, but the automotive industry, I think, is absolutely the right place to start. Paul Roberts: I mean, one point I would just make is that with the Internet of Things, right, we are facing a crisis in the very near future as manufacturers of everything from home appliances to personal electronics to equipment, as those products age and those manufacturers walk away from their responsibility to maintain them. So we're no longer supporting the software. We're no longer issuing security updates. Who will step in to maintain those devices? Keep them secure, keep them operating right? The manufacturers walked away. Do we just get rid of them? No, because the equipment still works perfectly. We're going to need a market-based response to that. We're going to need small businesses to step up and say, hey, I'll keep that Samsung dishwasher working for another 20 years. That's a huge economic opportunity for this country, but we cannot do it in the existing system because of the types of restrictions that we're talking about. And so this is really about enabling a secure future in which, when you buy a dishwasher with a 20 year lifespan, or 25 year lifespan, it's going to last that 25 years, not the five to six years that the manufacturer has decided, you know, that's how long we want to support the software for. Paul Roberts: My understanding is the use of design patents has increased dramatically, even exponentially, in the last 10 to 15 years. If you go back to the 90s or 80s, you know, parts makers, automakers were not applying these types of patents to replaceable parts like bumpers and rear view mirrors. Somebody had a business decision that, if you can do so, then we can capture more of that aftermarket by outlawing identical aftermarket replacements that has a huge downstream impact on car owners and on insurers and on all of us. 2:10:15 Paul Roberts: Both of the things that we're really proposing or talking about here, which would be changes to Section 1201 of the DMCA as well as passage of robust right to repair laws, would empower a market-based response to keeping the internet of things working, secure and functioning. DMCA 1201 reforms by making it clear that you can circumvent software locks for the purpose of repair and maintenance and upkeep, right? So that would take the threat of the federal crime away from small business owners as well as security researchers who are interested in, you know, plumbing that software for purposes of maintenance, upkeep and repair. And on the right to repair by making the tools available to maintain and upkeep products - diagnostic software, schematic diagrams, service manuals - available. Once again, you'll be empowering small business owners to set up repair shops and say, I'm going to keep your smart appliance running for its full 25 or 30 year lifespan, and I'm going to support my family doing that locally, and not be basically choked out of business by a company that says, Well, you don't have the right to access this product. From a cybersecurity perspective, that is really important, because one thing we don't want is a population of millions or tens of millions of out of date, unsupported, unpatched, insecure internet connected home appliances, webcams, home routers out there available to nation state actors, cyber criminal groups, to compromise and use for their own purposes. And that's something we already see, particularly around broadband routers and other types of devices, and it's a real threat going forward that I think this type of these types of changes would support. Aaron Perzanowski In a lot of instances, this conversation, and we've touched on this earlier, focuses on cost savings, right? And cost savings are an important consideration, right? Farmers aren't thrilled that they have to pay a technician from the John Deere dealer to drive maybe hours to get to their farm and connect their laptop and, you know, download these payload files to enable their equipment to work. But in the agricultural space, the thing I hear most often in the conversations I have with farmers is and Kyle touched on this a bit earlier, is a real concern about the time sensitivity of their work. If your tractor is out of commission for a week or two in the wrong part of the season, that is going to have disastrous effects, right, not only on that farm's economic outlook, but collectively, it can have an impact like, not to be hyperbolic here, but on our national food supply, and so I think it's really important that farmers have flexibility in terms of where and how they execute repairs, so that they can get their equipment back up and running. If my laptop breaks and I can't get it fixed for a week or two, I'm annoyed there will be emails that go unanswered, but like the world will continue to spin. That is not the case in the agricultural space where we, I think, have to be much more concerned. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): If I remove from my BMW, at least during certain models, I remove the radio, unplug it, and then plug it back in, simply because I was fiddling around with the dash, I now have to go back to the dealer to reinstall it. Similarly, the transmission example. I've got two John Deere tractors. One's got a busted engine, the other's got a busted transmission. Currently, they will prohibit you from moving the transmission from one to the other. From a standpoint of intellectual property, where, in God's green earth or the Constitution, are any of those designed to be rights that belong to the manufacturer, rather than rights that belong to the owners of those two John Deere tractors? Devlin Hartline: So those are a bunch of different situations, and so I think there would be underlying facts that differ with each right. So we started on the iPhone, and I was going to point out that iPhone will actually give you the tool to synchronize it. In those other situations, I don't know the business justification for it. How is that an IP problem? Right? So if that's locked up with the TPM, and you have to bypass the TPM, well then that's a violation of 1201, so that's how they can that's how they can lock -- Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): So what you're saying is that Congress has created impediments to the right to repair. Mr. Roberts, would you say that is correct? That, in fact, the right to repair, were Congress never to have done anything since, you know, George and Thomas were our presidents, so to speak, knowing those two presidents, we'd be able to do things we're not able to do because they're now prohibited by acts of Congress. Paul Roberts: Yes, and we certainly know going back to the 50s, 60s, 70s, there was a much more you know....First of all, companies would ship products with service and repair manuals with detailed schematic diagrams with the understanding that owners would want to replace and service them. And what I would say is, yes, absolutely. I doubt very much. And I know we had members who were here in 1998 authoring the DMCA. I think if you had said to them, in 25 years time, this law will be used to prevent somebody with a broken dishwasher from getting that serviced by their local repair shop or by for fixing it themselves, this law will prevent them from doing that, I doubt very much they would have said, yeah, that's pretty much what we want. Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA): Well, I will tell you that the I was the chairman of what is now the Consumer Electronics Association in 1998 and we did predict a lot of these items were going to be expanded beyond the scope of the original. Paul Roberts: Right now this is not an urgent issue, because most of the cars out there are older vehicles. As we move forward, as telematic systems evolve, as automakers continue their trend of moving more and more information to telematic systems, this is going to become a bigger problem. I'll point out another problem, which is the Massachusetts law is contingent on data transfers of diagnostic and repair information via the OBD or onboard diagnostic two port under the dashboard. That's only there because of federal Clean Air law. Electronic vehicles don't have that port because they don't have emissions, and so in the very near future, as we shift to electronic vehicles, that data access port will no longer be there. It will all be telematics data, and so the utility of the Massachusetts law is going to decline over time, going forward. And again, I you know, when you start talking about right to repair, you become like this crazy person who talks about right to repair every time it comes up. But one thing I try and stress to people when I talk to them about auto repair is, if you live in Michigan or California and you have taken your vehicle to the local independent repair shop, you have only done that because the voters in Massachusetts passed a ballot measure over a decade ago and then updated it in November 2020. That is the very thin thread that our right to use independent auto repair hangs by in this country. That's not the way it's supposed to be. This is something that affects vehicle owners, hundreds of millions of them in all 50 states. And it's a type of thing that the federal government needs to address with federal legislation. It should not hang by this very thin thread. 2:30:20 Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Are software updates new creations, and thus copyrightable? Devlin Hartline: Software updates, yeah, they're computer programs, and so Congress said explicitly in 1980, but it was understood before then, that computer programs are literary works and they're protected, just like any other copyrighted work. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA): Thank you, Professor Perzanowski, do you disagree? Aaron Perzanowski: I don't disagree at all that software updates are protectable subject matter under the Copyright Act. But what I think is important to keep in mind right is the Copyright Act and copyrights exclusive rights, and all of the exceptions and limitations to copyrights exclusive rights are created by Congress, and so if you think those rights are interfering with other important issues and concerns, then I think Congress clearly has the power to make changes to the copyright law in order to best serve what you ultimately determine to be in the public interest. 2:35:30 Aaron Perzanowski: Access to firmware and other code is really essential to the functioning and repair of lots of devices. I think there's some important differences between the standard essential patent context and kind of what we're talking about here in that in the standard essential patent context, we're relying on standard setting bodies to identify technologies and to require companies to license their patents under fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. We don't quite have that infrastructure in place in the copyright context, but what we do have are compulsory licenses that exist within the Copyright Act already, one of which you were alluding to earlier, the mechanical license for musical works. We also have compulsory licenses for retransmissions of satellite and broadcast content that essentially say the copyright owner is entitled to compensation of some form, but they're not entitled to prevent people from using or accessing that underlying work, and I think that could be a useful framework here for getting owners of devices access to the firmware that they need. Music by Editing Production Assistance

Lee comes on the show to discuss: EU CRA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberResilienceAct - its impact on bringing products to market and the challenges of enforcing such laws that require products to be "Secure" Recent legislation on disputes for federal agency fines - Chevron deference rule - supreme court decision, uncertainty, more or less clarity - proven in the first court case? opens to more litigation -https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference Breach disclosure laws - mandatory disclosure rules from the SEC - https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-31 Defcon cease and desist - “Copyright Act, the Defend Trade Secret Acts, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act” - https://securityledger.com/2024/08/a-digital-lock-maker-tried-to-squash-a-def-con-talk-it-happened-anyway-heres-why/ Don't tell the FCC there is a new Flipper firmware release, unpatchable?, argv[0] and sneaking past defenses, protect your registries, someone solved my UART RX problem, PKFail update, legal threats against security researchers documented, EDR bypass whack-a-mole continues, emulating PIs, VScode moonlights as a spy, Want to clone a YubiKey? All you need is $11,000, some fancy gear, and awkwardly close proximity to your victim, and Telegram's encryption: it's kinda like putting a 'Keep Out' sign but leaving the door unlocked. Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/psw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/psw-842

Lee comes on the show to discuss: EU CRA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberResilienceAct - its impact on bringing products to market and the challenges of enforcing such laws that require products to be "Secure" Recent legislation on disputes for federal agency fines - Chevron deference rule - supreme court decision, uncertainty, more or less clarity - proven in the first court case? opens to more litigation -https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference Breach disclosure laws - mandatory disclosure rules from the SEC - https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-31 Defcon cease and desist - “Copyright Act, the Defend Trade Secret Acts, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act” - https://securityledger.com/2024/08/a-digital-lock-maker-tried-to-squash-a-def-con-talk-it-happened-anyway-heres-why/ Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/psw-842

Lee comes on the show to discuss: EU CRA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberResilienceAct - its impact on bringing products to market and the challenges of enforcing such laws that require products to be "Secure" Recent legislation on disputes for federal agency fines - Chevron deference rule - supreme court decision, uncertainty, more or less clarity - proven in the first court case? opens to more litigation -https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference Breach disclosure laws - mandatory disclosure rules from the SEC - https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-31 Defcon cease and desist - “Copyright Act, the Defend Trade Secret Acts, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act” - https://securityledger.com/2024/08/a-digital-lock-maker-tried-to-squash-a-def-con-talk-it-happened-anyway-heres-why/ Don't tell the FCC there is a new Flipper firmware release, unpatchable?, argv[0] and sneaking past defenses, protect your registries, someone solved my UART RX problem, PKFail update, legal threats against security researchers documented, EDR bypass whack-a-mole continues, emulating PIs, VScode moonlights as a spy, Want to clone a YubiKey? All you need is $11,000, some fancy gear, and awkwardly close proximity to your victim, and Telegram's encryption: it's kinda like putting a 'Keep Out' sign but leaving the door unlocked. Visit https://www.securityweekly.com/psw for all the latest episodes! Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/psw-842

Lee comes on the show to discuss: EU CRA - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CyberResilienceAct - its impact on bringing products to market and the challenges of enforcing such laws that require products to be "Secure" Recent legislation on disputes for federal agency fines - Chevron deference rule - supreme court decision, uncertainty, more or less clarity - proven in the first court case? opens to more litigation -https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-happens-if-supreme-court-ends-chevron-deference Breach disclosure laws - mandatory disclosure rules from the SEC - https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2024-31 Defcon cease and desist - “Copyright Act, the Defend Trade Secret Acts, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act” - https://securityledger.com/2024/08/a-digital-lock-maker-tried-to-squash-a-def-con-talk-it-happened-anyway-heres-why/ Show Notes: https://securityweekly.com/psw-842

What do you need to know if you're ready to launch a government affairs strategy? How do you find the right lobbyist? And how has lobbying for tech companies changed over the last decade?Join Matt Tanielian, Co-founder of Franklin Square Group, a bipartisan government relations, as he shares key insights from his decades of experience advocating for tech companies and bridging the gap between Silicon Valley and Washington. D.C. From advising senators on foundation internet legislation like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Microsoft antitrust investigation, to lobbying for Apple as it launched its first iPhone in 2008, Matt has been instrumental to tech firms as they navigate the intricacies of Capitol Hill.Listen as Matt discusses how to work with politicians and government relations consultants, the value of joining coalitions and trade associations, the future of AI policy, and much more.Read detailed summary: https://www.spotdraft.com/podcast/episode-53Topics:Introduction: 0:00Attending law school in Washington, D.C.: 3:51Working for a committee vs. working for a congressperson: 5:05Questioning whether policy work requires a law degree: 7:12Launching your own government relations firm: 10:17Analyzing the evolving conversation around around tech in Washington: 13:15Hiring your company's first government relations consultant: 15:35Joining and organizing coalitions and industry organizations: 20:58Choosing who will represent your company in D.C.: 26:20Avoiding common mistakes: 28:30Envisioning the future of AI policy: 30:32Advising companies during an election year: 34:42Tracking the changing nature of lobbying: 36:09Book recommendations: 38:14Lobbying vs. government relations: 40:23What you wish you'd known as a young lawyer: 42:47Connect with us:Matt Tanielian - https://www.linkedin.com/in/matttanielian/Tyler Finn - https://www.linkedin.com/in/tylerhfinnSpotDraft - https://www.linkedin.com/company/spotdraftSpotDraft is a leading contract lifecycle management platform that solves your end-to-end contract management issues. Visit https://www.spotdraft.com to learn more.

On this episode of the Self-Publishing News Podcast, Dan Holloway covers Amazon's new identity verification requirement for KDP authors, aimed at preventing fraud and improving the reader experience. He also discusses the NO FAKES Act, a U.S. legislation designed to prevent the unauthorized use of people's likenesses and voices, particularly concerning AI and deepfakes. Also, Dan touches on a recent court ruling on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and its implications for DRM and VPN usage. Sponsors Self-Publishing News is proudly sponsored by Bookvault. Sell high-quality, print-on-demand books directly to readers worldwide and earn maximum royalties selling directly. Automate fulfillment and create stunning special editions with BookvaultBespoke. Visit Bookvault.app today for an instant quote. Self-Publishing News is also sponsored by book cover design company Miblart. They offer unlimited revisions, take no deposit to start work and you pay only when you love the final result. Get a book cover that will become your number-one marketing tool. Find more author advice, tips, and tools at our Self-publishing Author Advice Center, with a huge archive of nearly 2,000 blog posts and a handy search box to find key info on the topic you need. And, if you haven't already, we invite you to join our organization and become a self-publishing ally. About the Host Dan Holloway is a novelist, poet, and spoken word artist. He is the MC of the performance arts show The New Libertines, He competed at the National Poetry Slam final at the Royal Albert Hall. His latest collection, The Transparency of Sutures, is available on Kindle.

Julian Assange is a free man after agreeing to a plea deal with the United States Justice Department, the World Economic Forum wants you in filthy clothes, in an unsurprisingly daft move, CNN threatened to hit YouTubers with copyright strikes if they live stream Thursday's Presidential debate under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and more!GUEST: Tim Pool | Josh FirestineTax Network USA's tax specialists have settled over $500 million in tax debts to the IRS and state taxing authorities. Call 1 (800) 245-6000 or visit tnusa.com/crowderSOURCES: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/sources-june-25Join MugClub to watch this show every day! http://louderwithcrowder.com/mugclubNEW MERCH! https://crowdershop.com/Subscribe to my podcast: https://rss.com/podcasts/louder-with-crowder/FOLLOW ME: Website: https://louderwithcrowder.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/scrowder Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/louderwithcrowder Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficialMusic by @Pogo

No Offseason Episode 43 Feat. Jamaar Milton www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512.  Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure:
DMCA Compliance Policy
The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should:
1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site.
2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material.
3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address.
4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law.
5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed.
6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.”
Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure
BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS  receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS  will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material.
Notification Agent
Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

No Offseason Episode 44 Feat. Criminal God www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512.  Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure:
DMCA Compliance Policy
The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should:
1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site.
2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material.
3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address.
4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law.
5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed.
6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.”
Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure
BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS  receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS  will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material.
Notification Agent
Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

No Offseason Episode 45 Feat. JR Gamble www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512.  Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure:
DMCA Compliance Policy
The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should:
1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site.
2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material.
3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address.
4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law.
5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed.
6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.”
Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure
BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS  receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS  will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material.
Notification Agent
Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

"FTC and DOJ Aim to Fix McDonald's Ice Cream Machine Woes McDonald's has long been plagued by broken soft-serve ice cream machines, leading employees to use this reputation as an excuse to avoid additional work. However, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust division are seeking change. In a letter to the U.S. Copyright Office, they advocate for exemptions under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act for "commercial soft-serve machines." If successful, this move could finally put an end to McDonald's notorious ice cream machine troubles."

Guests: Katie Noble, Director, PSIRT and Bug Bounty at Intel CorporationOn LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/in/katie-trimble-noble-b877ba18a/Harley Geiger, Founder and Coordinator, Security Research Legal Defense FundOn LinkedIn | https://www.linkedin.com/in/harleylorenzgeiger/____________________________Host: Sean Martin, Co-Founder at ITSPmagazine [@ITSPmagazine] and Host of Redefining CyberSecurity Podcast [@RedefiningCyber]On ITSPmagazine | https://www.itspmagazine.com/itspmagazine-podcast-radio-hosts/sean-martinView This Show's Sponsors___________________________Episode NotesIn this episode of the Redefining CyberSecurity podcast, host Sean Martin is joined by Katie Noble, Director of Product Security and Communications at Intel Corporation, and Harley Geiger, a cybersecurity attorney at Venable LP. The episode provides a deep dive into the realm of vulnerability disclosure and the corresponding laws that shape its dynamics.The insightful conversation unveiled vulnerability disclosure as a toolbox for receiving vulnerabilities from diverse sources and then subsequently identifying, mitigating, and disclosing them. Both Noble and Geiger highlighted the importance of this process in creating a more secure digital ecosystem. However, they identified some challenges which include technical literacy, uneven state laws, clarity on good-faith security research, and sanctions that restrict conversation about vulnerabilities with certain entities.Furthering the discussion, they touched upon the implications of AI and services provided through APIs on vulnerability disclosure. They acknowledged AI as an enabler which necessitates creative thinking about new tools for infrastructure security. They also highlighted potential issues with cloud services and AI, along with the growing practice of identifying non-security harms such as bias and discrimination through similar disclosure processes.While discussing the role of regulations and policies, the Noble and Geiger stressed these aid in setting security standards and issuing regulatory compliance. They emphasized that understanding regulation as a net good and engaging proactively with policy formulation can result in better product security.The episode concluded with insights on how regulatory improvements could reduce liability and move the space forward. This includes improvements in state law, clarification around AI, and easing sanctions to allow dialogue around vulnerabilities.___________________________Watch this and other videos on ITSPmagazine's YouTube ChannelRedefining CyberSecurity Podcast with Sean Martin, CISSP playlist:

Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special Daily Special, Metro Shrimp & Grits Thursdays, is now available on the Spreaker Player!​​​​​​​Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, the Supreme Court ‘threw out half of Trump's appeal' by taking on his immunity case, while committing “the greatest ethical lapse” by a Supreme Court justice in history.Then, on the rest of the menu, Raw Story has sued OpenAI for violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; Virginia lawmakers again declined to put restrictions on the personal use of campaign accounts; and, the candidate atop the Republican ballot for Missouri governor says he was only an "honorary" KKK member, but he does acknowledge going to a "religious Christian Identity Cross lighting ceremony."After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where traces of toxic gas were found during the evacuation of the Swedish security agency; and, two scientists in Canada were fired for failing to protect sensitive information.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live Player​Keep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!“Everyone in this good city enjoys the full right to pursue his own inclinations in all reasonable and, unreasonable ways.”-- The Daily Picayune,New Orleans, March 5, 1851Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.

20 February 2024 - David Clements Live 6PM ET - Tucker Interview of Mike Benz - Digital Millennium Copyright Act.  If you'd like to send a message to Congress, it's linked below! Follow us on Social Media: https://libertylinks.io/ConservativeDaily https://libertylinks.io/JoeOltmann https://libertylinks.io/Apollo Message to Congress - URGENT: Assange's Final Appeal! Demand Congress Stop Assange's Extradition & Drop ALL Charges! - https://conservative-daily.com/julian-assange/urgent-assanges-final-appeal-demand-congress-stop-assanges-extradition-and-drop-all-charges

www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512.  Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure:
DMCA Compliance Policy
The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should:
1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site.
2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material.
3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address.
4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law.
5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed.
6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.”
Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure
BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS  receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS  will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material.
Notification Agent
Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512.  Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure:
DMCA Compliance Policy
The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should:
1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site.
2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material.
3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address.
4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law.
5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed.
6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.”
Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure
BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS  receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS  will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material.
Notification Agent
Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

No Offseason Podcast www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512.  Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure:
DMCA Compliance Policy
The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should:
1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site.
2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material.
3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address.
4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law.
5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed.
6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.”
Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure
BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS  receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS  will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material.
Notification Agent
Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

www.Barsandhoops.com Call in 516.206.0711 Download the free @barsandhoopsradio app for apple and android users. Like, Share & Subscribe to our page on all social media platforms. For interviews, promotional or business enquirers, email us at barsandhoopsradio@barsandhoops.com Copyright Disclaimer We do not own the musical copyrights to any music played during this broadcast. All music is played for promotional use only Digital Media Copyright Act l music and videos are copyrights of the original owners. Please support the artists and buy their work. We claim safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Title 17, United States Code, Section 512. Pursuant to the DMCA, if you are a copyright holder and believe your work is being infringed upon you are required by law to adhere to the following procedure:
DMCA Compliance Policy
The DMCA requires that all notices of alleged copyright infringement must be in writing. When informing the designated agent of an alleged copyright infringement, you should:
1. Identify the copyrighted work that allegedly has been infringed. If multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are involved, please provide a list of the works on that site.
2. Describe the material that is claimed to be infringing and provide sufficient information to permit BARSANDHOOPS to locate that material.
3. Provide your contact information, including an address, telephone number, and, if available, an e-mail address.
4. Certify or include a statement that you have a good faith belief that the use of the copyright-protected material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, the owner's agent, or law.
5. Certify that the information that you have provided BARSANDHOOPS is accurate. You should attest under penalty of perjury that you are authorized to enforce the copyrights that you allege have been infringed.
6. Include a physical or electronic signature of the copyright owner or person authorized to act on behalf of the owner.
BARSANDHOOPS may not be able to act on your complaint promptly or at all if you do not provide the information required in the “Contents of Notice.”
Before you allege an infringement, you should consult copyright materials to confirm that the use is, in fact, infringing. The United States Copyright Office provides basic information that can help you determine whether an exception or defense, such as fair use, may apply to the use of your copyrighted work. Notice, Takedown, and Putback Procedure
BARSANDHOOPS expects all users of its system to comply with applicable copyright laws. If BARSANDHOOPS receives notice of claimed copyright infringement, or otherwise becomes aware of facts and circumstances from which infringement is apparent, it will respond appropriately, which may include removing or disabling access to the material that is claimed to be infringing. BARSANDHOOPS will follow the procedures outlined in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as to notifications of users and the complaining parties, acceptance of counter notifications, takedown and/or putback of the alleged infringing material.
Notification Agent
Pursuant to the DMCA, Bars & Hoops LLC has designated an agent to receive notification of alleged copyright infringement occurring on Web pages or computer servers. If you believe that your copyrighted work is being infringed on a Barsandhoops site, please notify our designated agent, preferably by email, at: EMAIL: BARSANDHOOPSRADIO@BARSANDHOOPSRADIO.COM

This Day in Legal History: Dr. Spock IndictedOn this day in legal history, January 5, 1968, a noteworthy moment in the intersection of legal and social history unfolded as Dr. Benjamin Spock, a renowned child psychologist, faced indictment by a federal grand jury. He, along with several others, was charged with conspiring to assist individuals in evading the draft during the Vietnam War. This act was a bold statement against the contentious military draft and the war itself, reflecting the era's intense political and social turmoil.Dr. Spock, already famous for his influential book on child rearing, became a symbol of anti-war activism. His indictment was not just a legal proceeding but a cultural event, marking a stark confrontation between the U.S. government and war dissenters. The trial that ensued was a high-profile affair, drawing widespread public attention and media coverage.In the trial, the prosecution argued that Dr. Spock and his co-defendants had willfully conspired to undermine the draft system. Defense attorneys, however, presented their actions as an exercise of free speech and a moral stance against an unjust war. The courtroom became a venue for broader debates on civil liberties, government authority, and individual conscience.Ultimately, Dr. Spock was convicted, a decision that sent shockwaves across the nation. However, this was not the end of the story. The case ascended to the United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, where a crucial development occurred. In a landmark decision, the appellate court overturned Dr. Spock's conviction. The ruling in United States v. Spock was a significant moment in legal history, underscoring the delicate balance between government authority and individual rights.The case of Dr. Spock remains a vivid chapter in American legal and social history. It highlights the power of the judicial system to both enforce and check governmental power and reflects the era's profound struggles over war, peace, and freedom of expression. This episode, while rooted in its time, continues to resonate, illustrating the ongoing tensions between civic duty and personal beliefs.New York Governor Kathy Hochul has proposed an innovative plan to extend paid family leave benefits to include prenatal care, aiming to establish New York as the first state in the nation to offer such a program. Emphasizing the severity of the maternal and infant mortality crisis, Hochul, speaking in New York City, expressed a personal commitment to addressing these issues with supportive policies. This initiative surpasses even progressive states like California in broadening the social safety net, as it would allow New Yorkers to use 40 hours of paid leave for prenatal care, expanding beyond the current short-term disability benefits available only in the final weeks before childbirth.The funding details for this proposal are expected to be revealed in the upcoming state budget, following Hochul's State of the State address. The plan also includes the elimination of co-pays and out-of-pocket costs for pregnancy-related care in state-controlled insurance plans, and aims to remove referral requirements for doula services. During the announcement, Assemblymember Rodneyse Bichotte Hermelyn and City Council Speaker Adrienne Adams emphasized the potential impact of this expanded support on reducing the disproportionately high mortality rates among infants and minority mothers. Bichotte Hermelyn, highlighting her own experience with maternal loss, voiced strong support for the governor's comprehensive approach to improving maternal health and combating rising infant mortality rates.Hochul Aims for Nation's First Paid Prenatal Leave Benefit in NYNew York City has initiated a lawsuit against 17 bus companies for their role in transporting over 33,000 migrants from Texas, a move prompted by Texas Governor Greg Abbott's campaign to send migrants who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally to Democrat-led cities. Filed in a Manhattan state court, the city is seeking $708 million for costs incurred in providing shelter and services to these migrants over the past two years. Texas itself is not a defendant in this case, but the focus is on the bus companies, primarily based in Texas, which the city alleges earned millions from these transports.The legal action claims these companies violated a 19th-century New York law that mandates anyone bringing a "needy person" likely to seek government aid to New York from another state to cover their expenses. Additionally, some companies are accused of not complying with a New York City order requiring bus operators to notify the city if they transport 10 or more passengers likely to need emergency shelter.Governor Abbott started sending buses of migrants to cities like New York in 2022 as a response to what he perceives as inadequate federal action on the high numbers of illegal border crossings. He has been a vocal critic of President Joe Biden's immigration policies and has introduced various measures to discourage illegal migration. In contrast, Abbott defends the busing initiative, asserting the migrants traveled voluntarily and were authorized by the Biden Administration to remain in the U.S.This lawsuit comes in the wake of the Biden administration's own legal challenge against a new Texas law granting state officials extensive authority to arrest, prosecute, and deport migrants. The conflict underscores the growing tensions between state and federal approaches to immigration and the burden on cities like New York to accommodate an unexpected influx of migrants.New York City sues bus companies for transporting migrants from Texas | ReutersSpaceX has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), following accusations by the NLRB that the company illegally terminated employees critical of CEO Elon Musk. The fired employees had sent a letter branding Musk as "a distraction and embarrassment" and accusing him of making sexist remarks. This case, filed in Brownsville, Texas, challenges the NLRB's structure, arguing it violates the U.S. Constitution due to the protected status of board members and administrative judges, who can only be removed for cause, not at will.The NLRB's complaint against SpaceX concerns the firing of eight workers in 2022 who signed the letter critical of Musk. This case is set to be heard by an administrative judge and a five-member board appointed by the President, with the option to appeal their decisions in federal court.SpaceX's lawsuit aims to halt the NLRB's proceedings against them. This legal strategy mirrors SpaceX's previous approach in a case involving the U.S. Department of Justice, where the company contested the hiring process for refugees and asylum recipients. In that instance, a federal judge in Brownsville paused the administrative case, citing constitutional concerns over the appointment of administrative judges.This lawsuit against the NLRB reflects SpaceX's broader legal strategy to challenge administrative procedures and the structure of federal agencies. The NLRB itself is facing a similar challenge in a separate case involving a Starbucks Corp employee contesting the unionization process at her workplace.SpaceX sues US agency that accused it of firing workers critical of Elon Musk | ReutersPolicy groups are advocating for an exemption to the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, allowing independent hackers to legally circumvent digital security measures to examine artificial intelligence (AI) models for bias and discrimination. This proposal, part of a triennial review by the US Copyright Office, aims to increase transparency and trust in AI technology. It would enable researchers to access the models behind generative AI products from companies like OpenAI Inc., Microsoft Corp., Google, and Meta Platforms, Inc., to test for potential biases.The proposal, initially put forward by a graduate student, Jonathan Weiss, suggests that such access is crucial for ensuring AI models are free from biases, especially as they are increasingly used in decision-making. The Copyright Office has advanced this proposal along with others for review, with virtual public hearings scheduled in the spring.Supporters of the exemption, including the Hacking Policy Council and OpenPolicy, argue that it would allow researchers to expose and address biases and other harmful outputs in AI systems, leading to more reliable and fair technology. They stress that without such an exemption, there could be a chilling effect on research due to fear of legal repercussions.Critics, however, are expected to emerge, particularly from companies that consider their AI models confidential and proprietary. The exemption is seen as different from traditional concepts of fair use, and while it aims to facilitate independent research, it is not intended as a blanket protection for malicious hacking. The discussion around this exemption reflects the evolving relationship between AI development and the need for independent oversight to ensure fairness and reliability in these technologies.AI Copyright Hacking Exemption Would Boost Trust, Advocates SayThe unsealed ruling from the US International Trade Commission (ITC) reveals why certain Apple Watch models were initially banned from importation. Apple Inc.'s argument that it would face "unquantifiable harm" from the ban was rejected by the ITC due to a lack of evidence. This decision came after the ITC ruled that Apple's smartwatches infringed on patents held by Masimo Corp., a medical-device maker.Despite Apple's claim, the Commission found no evidence to support the alleged harm Apple would suffer from the import ban, which only affected a portion of one product line. Apple had gained a temporary reprieve from the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, allowing the sale of Apple Watch Series 9 and Ultra 2 to resume. However, this stay is only until the appeals court decides whether to extend it for the duration of Apple's appeal.The ITC also noted that while Masimo might suffer some harm from the stay, it wouldn't lose substantial revenue since Masimo is not selling its competing product, the W1 Watch, in significant quantities in the US. Additionally, the Commission dismissed Apple's vague reference to a potential detrimental impact on the healthcare field, finding that the public interest does not support a stay pending appeal.Apple is pursuing a multi-faceted strategy to overcome the ITC's decision, including redeveloping software for non-infringing versions of its watches and continuing its appeal. The US Customs and Border Protection is considering Apple's case, with a decision possibly impacting sales as soon as January 12. The Federal Circuit has given the ITC until January 10 to respond to Apple's request for a stay during the appeal.Unsealed Apple Ruling Reveals Why Watch Was Initially Banned Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Lawyer. Leader. Public Servant. Trailblazer. Friend. Marybeth Peters, the second-longest serving Register of Copyrights (1994 - 2010), died on September 29, 2022, in Washington, D.C., at the age of 83. With her passing, Register Peters left behind a lasting and far-reaching legacy in her storied 40-plus year career as a distinguished attorney, respected copyright law expert, and the director of the U.S. Copyright Office, where she helped shape and implement critical new laws, including the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act among others. In addition, Register Peters was remembered as a mentor, teacher, and friend who touched the lives of everyone around her with grace and her unforgettable laugh. Presented by the New York City Bar Copyright and Literary Property Committee, committee members Theodora Fleurant, a trademark attorney based in New York City, and Jose Landivar, an Associate at Coates IP, lead an unforgettable series of conversations with some of the people closest to Register Peters to look back on her life and legacy, including: • Shira Perlmutter, the current Register of Copyrights and Director of the U.S. Copyright Office • Maria Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers who formerly served as the 12th Register of Copyrights • Richard Dannay, Counsel at Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C. • Eric Schwartz, Partner at Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP, and former Acting General Counsel and Senior Legal Advisor to the Register of Copyrights • David Carson, current Copyright Office Claims Officer who, formerly served as head of the Copyright Policy Team in the Office of Policy and International Affairs at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and as General Counsel of the U.S. Copyright Office This podcast paints a fascinating portrait of a leading U.S. and international copyright law expert. It seeks to inspire listeners with lessons in leadership, courage, innovation, and dedicated public service. This podcast would not have been possible without the support of the U.S. Copyright Office (https://www.copyright.gov/) and audio provided by the Copyright Clearance Center. Photo: Courtesy of the U.S. Copyright Office. Access a transcript of this episode here: https://bityl.co/MvSf

Give us a call - 888-723-4630 Send us an email - podcast@ebay.com visit us at ebay.com/podcast    Welcome to eBay for Business! This week, eBay Director of Ads,Marketing Julie Klein shares what the survey data showed her team when it comes to the holiday shopping habits of Millennials and Gen Z. Griff and Brian answer questions about Search, using eBay International Shipping from Canada, and how eBay handles reports of counterfeit items.    To have your questions answered on our eBay for Business podcast, call us at 888 723-4630 or email us at podcast@ebay.com.  To give us feedback, please take our podcast listener survey at (https://connect.ebay.com/srv/survey/a/sellerops.podcast)   00:01 - Intro 05:49 - Gen Z & Millennial Holiday Shopping Habits 20:15 - Q&A and Outro   New links for Ep 269 eBay Two-Step Verification Options - https://www.ebay.com/help/account/protecting-account/tips-keeping-ebay-account-secure?id=4872#section2 eBay Ads Holiday Headquarters - https://www.ebayads.com/holiday-2023/ eBay Help Pages on “Search” - https://www.ebay.com/help/sr?query=search&origin=1 eBay Verified Rights Owner Program - https://www.ebay.com/help/sr?query=Vero&origin=1 The Digital Millennium Copyright Act - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act     Recurring Links / Phone Numbers / Hashtags Mentioned: 888-723-4630 - Call in Line  eBay Seller News Announcements - ebay.com/announcements eBay Community - ebay.com/community eBay Weekly Community Chat - ebay.com/communitychat eBay Help - ebay.com/help/home eBay Meetups - ebay.com/meetups Managed Payments on eBay - ebay.com/payments eBay for Business Podcast - ebay.com/podcast eBay Seller Center - ebay.com/sellercenter eBay Seller Hub - ebay.com/sh eBay System Status - ebay.com/sts explore.ebay.com facebook.com/eBayForBusiness eBay for Business Podcast Listener Survey - https://connect.ebay.com/srv/survey/a/sellerops.podcast #ebaypodcast

Guest Karen Sandler Panelist Richard Littauer Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain! Richard is in Portland at FOSSY, the Free and Open Source Software Yearly conference that is held by the Software Freedom Conservancy. In this episode, Richard is joined by Karen Sandler, Executive Director at Software Freedom Conservancy. Today, they discuss the various aspects of organizing a conference, emphasizing ethical considerations, precautions taken, software freedom, community involvement, GNOME pronunciation, and highlight community contributions and the balance between using open source and proprietary software. They explore topics like DRM, exemptions, coordination on renewals, the challenge of “trafficking provision,” and the global influence of U.S. law. Hit download now to hear more! [00:00:35] Karen discusses the challenges of organizing the conference but praises her staff. [00:01:18] Richard and Karen discuss conference inspiration, focus on software freedom, and avoiding corporate noise. There's an overview of talks and speakers, and a discussion on the correct pronunciation of “GNOME.” [00:03:46] Karen mentions attending the keynote session, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and reflects on the complexity of organizing with ethical considerations. [00:04:22] Richard asks Karen if there's any controversies she's had to weather at the conference, and she talks about COVID precautions, collaboration with charities, ethical practices in organizing, and how high school students have contributed to the event's success. [00:06:53] Richard questions Karen about the balance between using open source and proprietary software for practicality. Karen emphasizes the need for thoughtful decisions about using proprietary software, reflecting on the realistic choices to ensure software freedom. [00:09:14] Karen mentions having a nice coffee chat session with Kyle Wiens, and working together on 1201 materials, referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). She further discusses about how the 1201 provision affects people. [00:11:27] The conversation takes a shift to discussing the trafficking term. They begin discussing potential legislation and the frustrations around applying for limited exemptions. [00:12:28] Richard questions why they focus so much on U.S. law instead of working in a country without restrictive laws. Karen explains the global impact of the U.S. law and how other countries often follow suit. [00:14:15] They discuss the lobbying impact of big companies and how they can influence laws even in small countries. Also, Karen shares being grateful for the ability to criticize and work within the system, the idea of working in another place, and the need for a global movement. [00:15:25] Find out where you can learn more about Software Freedom Conservancy and Karen. Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) podcast@sustainoss.org (mailto:podcast@sustainoss.org) SustainOSS Mastodon (https://mastodon.social/tags/sustainoss) Open Collective-SustainOSS (Contribute) (https://opencollective.com/sustainoss) Richard Littauer Twitter (https://twitter.com/richlitt?lang=en) Karen Sandler Twitter (https://twitter.com/o0karen0o?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/) Open OSS (https://openoss.sourceforge.net/) GNOME (https://www.gnome.org/) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guest: Karen Sandler.

Free, ungated access to all 260+ episodes of “It's 5:05!” on your favorite podcast platforms: https://bit.ly/505-updates. You're welcome to

On this day in legal history, October 17, 1977, President Jimmy Carter signed Public Law 95-79, a bill that retroactively restored the U.S. citizenship of Jefferson Davis, the former President of the Confederate States of America. The restoration of his citizenship by Carter, a Southern Democrat, was seen by some as a symbolic gesture aimed at post-Civil Rights Era reconciliation.Debates surrounding the restoration of Jefferson Davis's citizenship have a long history dating back to the 1870s. In 1872, the Civil Rights Act of 1872 or the Third Enforcement Act aimed to ensure civil rights and equal protection for African Americans in the post-Civil War era. The Act barred high-ranking Confederate officials, such as Davis, from voting or holding public office. Davis had declared during his lifetime that he would not seek a pardon to regain these rights, underscoring his unwavering commitment to the Confederate cause. In 1884, for instance, Davis maintained his unyielding stance on the Civil War, saying, "Remember as I must all which has been lost, disappointed hopes, and crushed aspirations, yet I deliberately say, If I were to do it over again, I would do just as I did in 1861.”The legal significance of this action lies in its demonstration of presidential authority to grant or restore citizenship. This event also raised questions about the legal and moral implications of forgiving and rehabilitating former Confederate leaders who had been involved in the secession and war against the United States. Major U.S. food companies, including a Kraft Heinz Co. unit, Kellogg Co., General Mills Inc., and Nestle USA Inc. are heading to trial to address antitrust allegations against egg producers Cal-Maine Foods Inc. and Rose Acre Farms Inc. Kraft and company claim that the egg producers conspired to inflate egg prices from the late 1990s through at least 2008, leading to increased costs for egg products used in popular foods like cake mix, cereal, and waffles. The trial, set in an Illinois federal court, is the third attempt to prove these antitrust claims after two previous attempts failed.The plaintiffs argue that egg producers manipulated the supply and artificially increased prices, reflecting broader concerns about the market power held by large food producers. The case is significant because it underscores the consolidation of the food industry, potentially leading to price increases and production control that impact consumers, particularly during a period of high inflation.The success of the plaintiffs will depend on whether the judge instructs the jury to decide the case under the less rigorous "per se" rule in antitrust law, which presumes anticompetitive effects, giving the plaintiffs an advantage. The case moved forward after it was determined that the defendants had conspired to restrain trade in violation of the Sherman Act. While the case relates to past conduct, it reflects concerns about collusion and the power of major food producers over the U.S. food supply.The trial signifies an ongoing debate surrounding antitrust issues in the food industry, mirroring broader regulatory and congressional scrutiny of the market power held by major corporations.Kraft, Kellogg Go After Egg Producers for Price-Fixing SchemeSenator Amy Klobuchar, along with Senators Chris Coons, Thom Tillis, and Marsha Blackburn released the discussion draft of the No Fakes Act. This bipartisan discussion draft, aims to introduce federal protections against AI-generated deepfakes featuring celebrities and performers. This legislation establishes a federal right of publicity, allowing individuals to control their own image and voice. The bill targets concerns raised by public figures like MrBeast and Tom Hanks, who warned about AI-created deepfake ads falsely depicting them endorsing products. The proposed law would cover digital replicas of an individual's "image, voice, or visual likeness" and provide protection for 70 years post-death. Violators, including platforms knowingly sharing these deepfakes, could face fines and economic damages.However, the bill has raised questions about its potential impact on free speech and its interaction with existing intellectual property laws. It introduces exceptions for news, documentaries, and parodies but could still conflict with the First Amendment. The bill could also incentivize legal threats from companies, leading to potential abuses of the law. The legislation's focus on post-mortem rights has raised concerns about prioritizing commercial gain over combating nonconsensual deepfake usage. Furthermore, it might affect how social media platforms handle legal liability, as it doesn't align with existing laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The creative industry, including artists and entertainment companies, supports the legislation due to concerns about AI exploiting their creative work and livelihoods. However, further revisions and discussions are expected as the bill progresses through Congress.AI Deepfakes Bill Pushes Publicity Rights, Spurs Speech ConcernsBinance's U.S. affiliate has suspended the withdrawal of dollars from its platform, according to updated terms. This move follows a previous suspension of dollar deposits in early June, prompted by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) seeking to freeze Binance's assets. Customers looking to withdraw U.S. dollars are now required to convert them into stablecoins or other digital assets before withdrawal. The SEC had filed a lawsuit against Binance, its CEO Changpeng Zhao, and Binance.US in June, accusing the company of various charges, including inflating trading volumes and misusing customer funds. Crypto giant Binance's US affiliate halts direct dollar withdrawals | ReutersU.S. drugstore chain Rite Aid has filed for bankruptcy protection due to its heavy debt burden, declining revenues, increased competition, and opioid-related litigation. The company, founded in 1962, plans to close underperforming stores and sell its pharmacy benefit subsidiary, Elixir. Rite Aid also aims to resolve lawsuits linked to its sale of addictive opioid medications. Despite facing these challenges, the company intends to remain operational during the bankruptcy process.In fiscal year 2023, Rite Aid reported $24 billion in revenue but also incurred $750 million in losses due to mounting litigation costs. The U.S. government has accused Rite Aid of disregarding "red flags" while dispensing illegal opioid prescriptions, and the company faces approximately 1,600 other opioid-related lawsuits. Rite Aid, while denying wrongdoing, hopes to reach an equitable settlement in bankruptcy.Rite Aid's financial situation includes $4 billion in debt, $8.6 billion in total liabilities, and $7.65 billion in assets. The company plans to fund its restructuring with a $3.45 billion bankruptcy loan from existing lenders.Rite Aid has received a $575 million offer from pharmacy benefit firm MedImpact Healthcare Systems for Elixir but will seek higher offers for this business. The company is also considering the sale of some or all of its retail business. However, Rite Aid's bankruptcy announcement has led to a dispute with drug distributor McKesson, which supplies 98% of the prescription medicines sold by Rite Aid. The company is suing McKesson to prevent the termination of its drug supply agreement over a $700 million debt. Rite Aid expects to close more stores as its Chapter 11 case progresses and has appointed Jeffrey Stein as its CEO and chief restructuring officer, replacing interim CEO Elizabeth Burr.Rite Aid files for bankruptcy faced with high debt, opioid lawsuits | ReutersIn his latest column at Bloomberg, my co-host Andrew Leahey argues that the US should adopt a carbon border tax to address climate change. The EU recently introduced a carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), a tax on carbon at the border, aiming to offset carbon evasion by producers. This policy sets a precedent for other nations to follow suit, including the United States. Leahey argues that the US should adopt a similar CBAM, aligning its climate efforts with the EU to encourage countries without effective carbon pricing systems to implement policies addressing carbon emissions during production.In the past, attempts to pass a US CBAM were hindered by political challenges, but with the growing focus on climate change, there's renewed potential for success. The EU's CBAM offers the US both motivation and a blueprint for a carbon pricing system that can garner bipartisan support. By framing the policy as a means to protect domestic production while addressing climate change, the US can find common ground.Despite potential legal obstacles involving the World Trade Organization and trade agreements, the adoption of a US CBAM could protect domestic industries, prevent carbon leakage, and prompt other countries to implement carbon pricing systems. Leahey writes that the EU's move presents an opportunity for the US to take meaningful action in the fight against climate change and protect its economic interests.US Should Adopt Carbon Border Tax to Address Climate Change Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This episode is sponsored by Shopify. Shopify is a commerce platform that allows anyone to set up an online store and sell their products. Whether you're selling online, on social media, or in person, Shopify has you covered on every base. With Shopify you can sell physical and digital products. You can sell services, memberships, ticketed events, rentals and even classes and lessons. Sign up for a $1 per month trial period at http://shopify.com/eyeonai On episode #145 of Eye on AI, Craig Smith sits down with Riley McCormack, President and CEO of Digimarc, pioneers in digital watermarking and cloud-based product data. In this episode, we explore the critical role of digital watermarking in securing our digital assets, especially amidst the surging influence of AI. Riley guides us through the potential risks and benefits this technology brings to the forefront as AI continues to transform our digital world. We then navigate the intricate territories of NFTs and distributed ledger technology, understanding how digital watermarking is reshaping these fields by ensuring trust and authenticity. Our discussion also delves into the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1997, highlighting its relevance in upholding copyrights and fostering trust within the digital stratosphere. We conclude with a look at how digital watermarking impacts content creation and its role in shaping a secure and sustainable digital future, from collaborations with central banks to innovative products like Digimarc Recycle.   Craig Smith Twitter: https://twitter.com/craigss Eye on A.I. Twitter: https://twitter.com/EyeOn_AI   00:00 Preview, Introduction and Shopify 03:05 Introduction to Digital Watermarking  07:01 Evolution of Digital Watermarking  14:21 Digimarc's Role in Digital Watermarking 21:13 Exploring the Protection Of Digital Content  28:56 Key Characteristics of Digital Watermarking  35:12 Application and Implementation of Digital Watermarking  42:46 Watermarking in Blockchain  49:11 What is Digimarc Validate? 01:03:01 Outro and Shopify

What do you do when your photo pops up somewhere you DON'T want to be? Do you have any options? Heck... do you even own your image? Inspired by a recent call from a concerned therapist, this week Wolf tells Stefani all about the Digital Millennium Copyright Act- how it can protect you when unwanted images, recordings, and other content is shared online and where it's usefulness is limited. What does ANY of this have to do with baby hippos? Tune in this week to find out. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Show notes on SecuringSexuality.com

We've all been there. It's a hot day and all we want is a cone of soft serve ice cream. But the person behind the cash register solemnly informs us the ice cream machine is out of order. What's going on? We learn about the ice cream machines used at McDonald's franchises and how service agreements, bad technical manuals and copyright law mess everything up.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Hook Rocks welcomes back our resident music business insider Kristi Enigl to discuss the latest on Live Nation and Ticketmaster, TikTok, & ChatGPT/AI. Please enjoy the episode! Part of The Pantheon Podcast Network     http://pantheonpodcasts.com     https://twitter.com/pantheonpods     https://www.facebook.com/PantheonPodcasts     Kristi Enigl     https://twitter.com/KristiEnigl 1 https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ticketmaster-live-nation-agree-all-in-prices-part-biden-war-junk-fees-2023-06-15/  @Reuters    2 https://www.breakupticketmaster.com/  #breakupticketmaster   3 https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/tiktok-ban-biden-government-college-state-federal-security-privacy-rcna63724 @NBCNews   4 https://artists.spotify.com/discovery-mode @Spotify   5 https://www.hypebot.com/hypebot/2023/01/how-much-spotify-is-paying-per-stream-in-2023.html @hypebot    6 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act   7 https://rightofpublicity.com/statutes   8 https://www.cnn.com/profiles/vanessa-yurkevich     https://www.instagram.com/krisieng/     The Hook Rocks     https://www.facebook.com/TheHookRocks     https://twitter.com/TheHookRocks     https://www.instagram.com/thehookrocks/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By 1998 the US had passed its Digital Millennium Copyright Act. And partly because the US generates so much copyrightable material, and partly just because it's the US and is a little pushy on the world stage, the DMCA became the de facto way of handling copyright protections on the internet around the world.But what is it? Why did we need the DMCA or the WIPO copyright treaty at all?Let's help you Know a Little more about the DMCAFeaturing Tom Merritt.Full episode transcript available here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Michael Snyder and Joseph Gushue are joined by special guests from the U.S. Copyright Office, Brittany Lamb, Attorney-Advisor in the Office of the General Counsel and John Riley, Assistant General Counsel as they dive into the evolving landscape of providing additional access for certain copyright claims, focusing on the Copyright Claims Board (CCB). Learn how the CCB makes the copyright claim system accessible for more people and why it was created right from the experts who contributed to its development. The panel examines the purpose, processes, and procedures of the CCB. Listeners will learn about this alternative to litigation in Federal Court for both copyright owners and responders, the qualifications for the CCB tribunal, the types of eligible copyright claims that can be filed with the CCB, and the threshold for damages awarded. Our Copyright Office guests will also guide listeners through topics such as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, whether a copyright registration is necessary to file with the CCB and the fees involved in the process. In plain language, Brittany and John explain the process available to “everyday” copyright owners, many of whom rely on their ability to license or sell their works for a livelihood. Listeners will learn about the options available if a CBB claim is filed against you, including the possibility to opt-out, being able to use Fair Use as a defense, and the overall benefits of the virtual nature of all CCB proceedings. This considerably expedited process demonstrates early indications of success as a voluntary alternative to Federal Court. Whether you are a copyright holder, content creator, or simply curious about an alternative forum for addressing copyright disputes, this enlightening IP Goes Pop!  episode will get you up to speed on the Copyright Claims Board and how it makes copyright claims more accessible for all. For full show notes and to explore more episodes, please visit www.vklaw.com/newsroom-podcasts. You can stay connected with us on Facebook, Linkedin or Twitter, and Instagram using the handle @volpeandkoenig. Want to learn more about the Copyright Claims Board? Explore the resources provided and approved by the U.S Copyright Office below: CCB website homepage: https://ccb.gov/ Claimant Information Page: https://ccb.gov/claimant/ Respondent Information Page: https://ccb.gov/respondent/ eCCB: https://dockets.ccb.gov/ CCB Handbook: https://ccb.gov/handbook/ FAQs: https://ccb.gov/faq/

*Content warning: This episode includes discussion of racism, revenge porn, cybercrimes, stalking, gang stalking, emotional, mental, and physical abuse, and murder. Author, speaker, and activist Charlotte Laws recently appeared on Netflix's Most Hated Man on the Internet. Her fierce tenacity played a large role in the takedown of a major nonconsensual pornography website, and she continues to add a great deal to the conversation around the revenge porn legal landscape. However, her life before the infamous legal and media battles, as well as what came next for Charlotte and her daughter after it, is extremely riveting.  The Most Hated Man on the Internet: https://www.netflix.com/title/81387065 Charlotte's website: https://charlottelaws.com/ Charlotte's memoir, Rebel in High Heels http://rebelinhighheels.com/ Charlotte's true crime memoir, Devil in the Basement http://devilinthebasement.com/ Charlotte's memoir, Undercover Debutante http://undercoverdebutante.com/ Information about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1968 https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf NAAG Update on Legal Landscape of Revenge Porn https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/an-update-on-the-legal-landscape-of-revenge-porn/ Newsweek: An Update on Hunter Moore https://www.newsweek.com/hunter-moore-still-prison-today-now-anyone-most-hated-man-internet-1729636

Disney is asking a federal court to issue Digital Millennium Copyright Act subpoenas to Reddit and Google in order to identify the individuals responsible for leaking dialogue from the “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” before the movie's release. Google announces more AI features in Docs and Gmail, and launched API access for its Large Language Model. And how will Amazon's Project Kuiper compete against Elon Musk's Starlink to provide satellite to cell phone service.Starring Tom Merritt, Sarah Lane, Patrick Norton, Roger Chang, Joe.Link to the Show Notes. Become a member at https://plus.acast.com/s/dtns. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Disney is asking a federal court to issue Digital Millennium Copyright Act subpoenas to Reddit and Google in order to identify the individuals responsible for leaking dialogue from the “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” before the movie's release. Google announces more AI features in Docs and Gmail, and launched API access for its Large Language Model. And how will Amazon's Project Kuiper compete against Elon Musk's Starlink to provide satellite to cell phone service. Starring Tom Merritt, Sarah Lane, Patrick Norton, Roger Chang, Joe, Amos To read the show notes in a separate page click here! Support the show on Patreon by becoming a supporter!

This episode of the Cyberlaw Podcast opens with a look at some genuinely weird behavior by the Bing AI chatbot – dark fantasies, professions of love, and lies on top of lies – plus the factual error that wrecked the rollout of Google's AI search bot. Chinny Sharma and Nick Weaver explain how we ended up with AI that is better at BS'ing than at accurately conveying facts. This leads me to propose a scheme to ensure that China's autocracy never gets its AI capabilities off the ground.  One thing that AI is creepily good at is faking people's voices. I try out ElevenLabs' technology in the first advertisement ever to run on the Cyberlaw Podcast. The upcoming fight over renewing section 702 of FISA has focused Congressional attention on FBI searches of 702 data, Jim Dempsey reports. That leads us to the latest compliance assessment on agencies' handling of 702 data. Chinny wonders whether the only way to save 702 will be to cut off the FBI's access – at great cost to our unified approach to terrorism intelligence,  I complain that the compliance data is older than dirt. Jim and I come together around the need to provide more safeguards against political bias in the intelligence community.  Nick brings us up to date on cyber issues in Ukraine, as summarized in a good Google report. He puzzles over Starlink's effort to keep providing service to Ukraine without assisting offensive military operations.  Chinny does a victory lap over reports that the (still not released) national cyber strategy will recommend imposing liability on the companies that distribute tech products – a recommendation she made in a paper released last year. I cannot quite understand why Google thinks this is good for Google. Nick introduces us to modern reputation management. It involves a lot of fake news and bogus legal complaints. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and European Union (EU) and California privacy law are the censor's favorite tools. What is remarkable to my mind is that a business taking so much legal risk charges so little. Jim and Chinny bring us up to date on the charm offensive being waged in Washington by TikTok's CEO and the broader debate over China's access to the personal data of Americans, including health data. Jim cites a recent Duke study, which I complain is not clear about when the data being sold is individual and when it is aggregated. Nick reminds us all that aggregate data is often easy to individualize.  Finally, we make quick work of a few more stories: This week's oral argument in Gonzalez v. Google is a big deal, but we will cover it in detail once the Justices have chewed it over.   If you want to know why conservatives think the whole “disinformation” scare is a scam to suppress conservative speech, look no further than the scandal over the State Department's funding of an non-governmental organization (NGO) devoted to cutting off ad revenue for “risky” purveyors of “disinformation” like Reason (presumably including the Volokh Conspiracy), Real Clear Politics, the N.Y. Post, and the Washington Examiner – all outlets that can only look like disinformation to the most biased judge. The National Endowment for Democracy has already cut off funding, but Microsoft's ad agency still seems to be boycotting these conservative outlets. EU Lawmakers are refusing to endorse the latest EU-U.S. data deal. But it is all virtue signaling. Leaving Twitter over Elon Musk's ownership turns out to be about as popular as leaving the U.S. over Trump's presidency. Chris Inglis has finished his tour of duty as national cyber director. And the Federal Trade Commission's humiliation over its effort to block Meta's acquisition of Within is complete. Meta closed the deal last week. Download 443rd Episode (mp3)  You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

Listener The Gregolas asked if I might explain The Illegal Number. What makes a number illegal? Can numbers actually be illegal? Isn't that absurd? YES! See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

DRM, or digital rights management, can cause far more problems than what it was meant to solve. And it doesn't even solve the problem it was designed to do. In this episode, we look at several cases where DRM caused problems for legitimate customers. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Sony is combining two existing services into something new. Plus the supply chain problems we've been having are likely going to get worse. And we hear about AI-generated LinkedIn profiles. Could your coworker be a robot? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.