Ron Paul Loses Attempt to Claim RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org Domain Names
As I blogged back in February, Ron Paul angered some of his fans by relying on a UN-sponsored dispute resolution mechanism, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), to try to claim he should legally own the domain names RonPaul.com and RonPaul.org, not the people who currently did.
WIPO has now decided against Paul and for the current name holders. Their full decision on the .org challenge specifically.
The core of WIPO’s reasoning:
First, Respondent [current owners] has used the Domain Name to link it to an independent and legitimate fan site. As Respondent puts it, expressing support and devotion to Ron Paul’s political ideals is a legitimate interest that does not require Complainant’s [Ron Paul] authorization or approval. Moreover, Respondent’s legitimate interest in the Domain Name is strong because the site provides a place for political speech, which is at the heart of what the United States Constitution’s First Amendment is designed to protect. In this way, the Panel is persuaded by Respondent’s arguments and evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish any trademark at issue.
Moreover, Respondent has submitted evidence that there are multiple, very clear disclaimers on the website to which the Domain Name links, indicating that the site is not Complainant’s official site. In regards to Complainant’s arguments that the website is actually a “pretext for commercial advantage”, the Panel finds the website linked to the Domain Name is primarily a noncommercial service, while the products advertised and sold are ancillary to the site’s primary purpose as a source of news and information about Ron Paul, and serving as political forum…..
The website is offering goods and services that promote Ron Paul and sells only goods that promote Ron Paul. The site goes far to dispel any confusion that Respondent or JNR might have a relationship to Complainant, including use of multiple, prominently placed disclaimers. Finally, related to Respondent’s second main point, there is no evidence that Respondent has attempted to corner the market of domain names to prevent Complainant from reflecting his alleged RON PAUL mark in a domain name. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that in 2013 Respondent offered to give Complainant the <ronpaul.org> Domain Name for free.
Publicity Rights Aren’t Property Rights: Appellate Court Gets It Very Wrong in Hart v. EA
Bad facts make bad law: it’s legal cliché that is unfortunately based on reality. We saw as much yesterday, in the case of Ryan Hart v. Electronic Arts. Presented with a situation that just seemed unfair, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals proceeded to make a whole bunch of bad law that puts dollars ahead of speech.
Here are the facts: Electronic Arts sells a videogame called NCAA Football.; Part of the success of the game is based on its realism and detail—including its realistic digital avatars of college players. One of those players was Ryan Hart, who played for Rutgers University from 2002 to 2005. NCAA Football did not use Hart’s name, but the game included an avatar with Hart’s Rutgers team jersey number, biographical information, and statistics. Trouble is, no one asked Hart if he wanted to be part of the game. Nor did anyone pay him for it—they couldn’t, because college players aren’t allowed to accept money for any kind of commercial activity. When Ryan discovered the game, he sued EA based on a lesser-known but pernicious legal doctrine, the right of publicity.
The right of publicity a funny offshoot of privacy law that gives a (human) person the right to limit the public use of her name, likeness and/or identity, particularly for commercial purposes like an advertisement. The original idea was that using someone’s face to sell soap or gum, for example, might be embarrassing for that person and that she should have the right to prevent it. While that might makes some sense in a narrow context, states have expanded the law well beyond its original boundaries. For example, the right was once understood to be limited to name and likeness, but now it can mean just about anything that “evokes” a person’s identity, such as a phrase associated with a celebrity (like “Here’s Johnny,”) or even a robot dressed like a celebrity. And in some states, the right can now be invoked by your heirs long after you are dead and, presumably, in no position to be embarrassed by any sordid commercial associations. In other words, it’s become a money-making machine.
But there has traditionally been at least one limit on publicity claims: the First Amendment. In a nutshell, courts are supposed to balance a person’s right to control the use of her identity against others’ right to expressive speech – including videogames. Unfortunately, the Third Circuit just threw that balance way out of whack.
The good: The court recognizes that videogames are protected expression under the First Amendment, and that free speech is important. Whew!
The bad: The court embraced the wrong test for balancing a person’s commercial interests against free speech. Many courts have sensibly borrowed from trademark law and found that, where the invocation of an identity is part of the expressive purpose, the court should not punish it unless it is in essence a disguised advertisement, e.g., the user is just trying to use a person’s name to call attention to an product (like potato chips).
Here, the court went off in an entirely different direction, borrowing instead from copyright law to conclude that only uses that are “transformative” can be protected by the First Amendment. In copyright, whether a work is transformative, i.e., creates something new with a different purpose or character, is an important part of the fair use analysis. However, the court imported a decidely narrow approach to transformativeness: did not consider whether the game as a whole had transformative value, as one would in a copyright case, but focused solely only on how Hart’s identity was used or transformed. The court reasoned that since the “digital Ryan Hart does what the actual Ryan Hart” did, i.e. play college football, there was no transformation and Hart’s economic interests trumped EA’s free speech interests. The court was also selective about what it chose to import from copyright, ignoring several other factors relevant to fair use, such as market harm and whether the underlying work is factual (if so, copyright protection is “thinner”).
As a group of video and filmmakers pointed out, the transformation test is a bad fit for publicity rights. The fair use analysis generally balances competing speech interests—those of the original and secondary authors. But there is no speech interest in cashing in on your fame. In addition, copyright law is designed to encourage creativity through economic incentives. No such additional incentive is needed for celebrities.
It’s entirely understandable that a court might sympathize with Ryan Hart. But if the court’s test was applied broadly, it could have a devastating impact on creative works that relate to real people and life stories. For example, the rationale would apply directly to political biographies or biopics like The Social Network. It could even impact news reporting. The appellate court’s decision sends a message to all creators—if you create a work that happens to evoke someone’s identify, and your use isn’t “transformative” enough, your free speech is less important than that person’s ability to milk his or her fame for everything it’s worth.
Finally, the ugly: The Third Circuit expressly embraced a very silly notion: that your name and fame are your “property.” Nonsense—publicity rights are a limited right to control use of your identify for commercial purposes—nothing more, nothing less. As we’ve seen with copyrights and trademarks, treating limited monopolies in certain expression this way leads people to embrace broad and dangerous new forms of protection. By treating publicity rights as equivalent to a real property right (in your home, for example), the court gave far too much weight to celebrities’ interest in control over their image and far too little weight to free speech.
Inside Broadmoor - Documentary 2002 (by JoeDnufc4life)
Adam Kokesh charged with felony assault on an officer held without bail
I take this charge with a very big grain of salt. Lets just say I belive this a made up charge so they can silence him. In the end all they will end up doing is making a martyr. Someone people will flack around as a symbol.
(via anunreliablesource)
Feds Push Insane New Speech Codes! (by ReasonTV)
Can you say think police. 1984 is here, and strong in our schools. All based on what you may say. Big Brother is the biggest bully on campus.
Memphis Cop Car Ends Up Against Pole, Other Cops at the Scene Ticket Drivers for Going Too Slow
A Memphis police officer was driving too fast as he tried to chase down a driver for not wearing a seatbelt, so his car ended up upright against a telephone pole, prompting other motorists to slow down and take photos of the incident.
That, of course, prompted other officers to ticket those drivers for driving too slow, according to WREG.
No word yet as to whether the first officer will be ticketed for reckless driving.
Love how this has taken off on the internet. Got to love showing how dumb lot of law enforcement is.
(via disaffected-libertarian)
U.S. Secretly Obtains Two Months of A.P. Phone Records
The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative’s top executive called a “massive and unprecedented intrusion” into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed outgoing calls for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, for general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, Conn., and for the main number for the AP in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP. It was not clear if the records also included incoming calls or the duration of the calls.
In all, the government seized the records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown, but more than 100 journalists work in the offices where phone records were targeted, on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
» via The New York Times (Subscription may be required for some content)
Justice Department secretly taps into AP reporters’ phone records
In a surprising declaration a short time ago, the Associated Press revealed that the Justice Department had obtained two months of phone records tied to numerous reporters and editors in various cities, in what the news organization is calling a “massive and unprecedented intrusion.”
The reason for the government’s actions, which the AP was alerted to in a letter Friday, are as of now unknown.
From the Associated Press’ story on the emerging scandal:
In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
AP’s President and CEO, Gary Pruitt, issued a strongly-worded letter to Attorney General Eric Holder:
We regard this action by the Department of Justice as a serious interference with AP’s constitutional rights to gather and report the news. While we evaluate our options we urgently request that you immediately return to the AP the telephone toll records that the Department subpoenaed and destroy all copies.Photo: Molly Riley / Associated Press
Chasing Anarchists: May Day and the Federal Government's Use of Grand Juries as Political Counterintelligence
04/30/2013
It’s almost May 1st, otherwise known as May Day or International Workers Day. The genesis of May Day can be traced to labor struggles of the late 19th century in the United States, but today it’s more widely celebrated in other parts of the world. Nevertheless, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is keenly interested in May Day-focused political demonstrations as if they represent a real threat to National Security in the U.S.
A year ago, on May Day 2012, a demonstration in Seattle, Washington resulted in a few broken windows at certain targeted corporations and other locations. As a result of these actions, which have become relatively commonplace at political demonstrations over the past decade, local law enforcement arrested and began criminally prosecuting five people accused of property destruction and other crimes. Ironically and perhaps symbolically, the trials in these State cases are scheduled to occur just after this May Day 2013.
But, that’s not the whole story.
Last July 25th, in the early morning hours, the FBI conducted a series of coordinated actions across the Pacific Northwest, during which dozens of Joint Terrorism Task Force agents broke down doors, entered residences with automatic weapons drawn, and used flash-bang grenades while searching the homes of several targeted individuals and serving subpoenas on others.
According to one of the search warrants used in the raids, the federal government was looking for “Anti-government or anarchist literature,” black clothing, flags, flag-making material, address books, cell phones, hard drives and other electronic storage devices. Multiple people were served with subpoenas to appear before a federal grand jury the following week in Seattle.
Although initially unclear, the federal government’s motivations soon became clear. Ostensibly tied to criminal investigations surrounding the May Day 2012 demonstrations, the series of raids and grand jury subpoenas would frame an effort by the FBI over the ensuing months to find out more about the anarchist community. Official records, however, also revealed that political activists endured heavy surveillance in the days leading up to May Day 2012.
Indeed, political-based surveillance and infiltration has become a renewed and common policing practice over the past decade at protests in the U.S. The anarchist-inspired Global Justice movement, which formed in the late 1990s, culminated with massive protests against the World Trade Organization (WTO) in Seattle. Images of Black Bloc anarchists breaking the windows of banks and corporate chain stores in 1999 gave the federal government a modern day “bogeyman,” which it has strategically used to antagonize and intimidate activists of all political persuasions ever since.
By constantly invoking the specter of “violent anarchists,” and “outside agitators,” law enforcement and other public officials hope to intimidate those demanding broad-based social change. Negative perceptions of anarchists and anarchism are not only generated by government and unquestioningly perpetuated by mainstream media, but they are also routinely used to drive a wedge between dissidents and an otherwise supportive public. The manufactured fear of anarchist bogeymen is conveniently used to justify the tens of billions of dollars spent on so-called “homeland security.”
According to a recent report by the National Lawyers Guild, the “violent anarchist” narrative is used by authorities prior to almost every large political demonstration in order to justify “enormous security expenditures, large numbers of police, and strict event zone ordinances.” The Guild further asserts that this strategy “produces a ‘threat amplification’ spiral that consistently leads to sweeping police repression,” which is “the desired outcome of a multi-pronged strategy of maintaining control over the populace.”
* * *
So, why is the cash-strapped U.S. Justice Department so interested in a few broken windows? According to the affidavit used to obtain search warrants in the coordinated July raids, the pretext used by U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan was to find and prosecute the people who vandalized the William Kenzo Nakamura U.S. Courthouse in downtown Seattle. But, why didn’t the State of Washington bring charges against the accused like it did with the five people currently being prosecuted? Many activists believe that Durkan and the rest of the Justice Department are eager to learn more about anarchists, disrupt their communities, and deter activists from confrontational political protest.
The search warrant affidavit, which was hidden from public view until earlier this year when The Stranger and attorney Neil Fox got the court to unseal it, contained some clues. In order to get a federal judge to sign the search warrant, the government claimed the raids would yield “evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of violations of the following offenses:”
Destruction of government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1361; Conspiracy to destroy government property, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; Interstate travel with intent to riot, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2101; and Conspiracy to travel interstate with intent to riot, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371.
While the federal government could convene a grand jury based on any of the above charges, it’s the last two that stand out as a particularly aggressive legal move. Crossing state lines with the intent to riot and conspiracy to do the same are felonies contained in a little known provision of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 — passed in response to inner-city riots throughout the previous decade. Although not explicitly protesting racial inequality, the Chicago 8 defendants were accused of inciting riots at the 1968 Democratic National Convention and were the first to be indicted under the Act. Have we progressed so little that we’re using the same sensationalized charges 45 years later in an attempt to undermine yet another political movement?
* * *
Last summer, in the Pacific Northwest, anarchists and other activists quickly came together after the July raids to organize a response to the grand jury subpoenas. A group calling itself the Committee Against Political Repression, which takes a principled stand against cooperation with politically motivated grand juries, began to stage demonstrations and offer direct material and legal support to those subpoenaed. Solidarity actions began happening across the country and around the world. As a result of widespread opposition to the government’s apparent fishing expedition in the anarchist community, one-by-one people refused to testify and answer questions being asked by the federal prosecutor.
By the end of 2012, four of those subpoenaed had been jailed, not based on any criminal convictions, but for refusing to testify before the grand jury. Matt Duran, Katherine “KteeO” Olejnik, Leah-Lynn Plante, and Matthew “Maddy” Pfeiffer all made strong public statements against cooperation. Duran and Olejnik were the first to be jailed for civil contempt in September. Then, in October, Plante was jailed, but a week later released under an apparent agreement to testify. In late December, Pfeiffer joined Duran and Olejnik in jail, with the three spending several weeks in solitary confinementwithout explanation.
Under the rules of the U.S. justice system, one can be jailed for civil contempt if he or she refuses to testify before a grand jury after being granted so-called “use immunity,” which can protect a subpoenant from being prosecuted for crimes related to the grand jury. However, this immunity may not protect the subpoenant from being prosecuted for other crimes such as perjury. Civil contempt must be imposed as a means of coercing not punishing one to testify. In order to achieve this end, the court can keep you jailed until the grand jury expires, up to 18 months.
Under some circumstances, a subpoenant can be released early if he or she can demonstrate that no amount of coercion will result in the desired testimony. This can be achieved with a “motion for release from non-coercive confinement,” or “Grumbles” motion, named after the appellants in a 1971 court case.
In February, after spending five months in jail, Duran and Olejnik filed Grumbles motions, but not before the Seattle Human Rights Commission sent a scathing letter to federal District Court Judge Richard Jones, condemning the use of solitary confinement and calling for the prisoners’ immediate release. According to The Stranger, attorneys for Duran and Olejnik argued that not only was their clients’ detention punitive, but the government also appeared to no longer need their testimony, based on information revealed in the search warrant affidavit.
It’s rare for Grumbles motions to succeed, given a government-leaning judicial system and the blurry line between coercion and punishment. Despite this, Judge Jones decided to free Duran and Olejnik days later with a strongly worded order. Judge Jones noted that during the detainees’ time in the Special Housing Unit (SHU) of the Federal Detention Center at SeaTac, “Their physical health has deteriorated sharply and their mental health has also suffered from the effects of solitary confinement.” The Jones order echoed “extensive declarations” by Duran and Olejnik that “they will never end their confinement by testifying.”
Shortly after Duran and Olejnik’s release, the still-detained Pfeiffer was also set free. But freedom for the grand jury resisters has not resulted in an end to the federal government’s campaign against the anarchist community. According to The Stranger, over the past week, FBI agents in Seattle and Olympia identifying themselves as members of the domestic terrorism unit have been “showing up at people’s houses, jogging locations, schools, [and] workplaces,” asking about “coworkers, roommates, romantic situations, and general social-mapping questions.” Without a shred of evidence of terrorist activity or motivations, dissidents are left to assume that this continued harassment is at least partly aimed at chilling political protest on May Day 2013.
Although there remains a looming threat of federal indictments, dissidents are refusing to be intimidated. Activists of all stripes are busily organizing May Day activities and are continuing their efforts to draw attention to the federal grand jury in Seattle and to support those resisting its fishing expedition. Anarchists and other dissidents from around the country have organized a week of actionsfrom April 24th-May 1st to oppose political repression and express solidarity with grand jury resisters.
* * *
Unfettered speculation on the true motivations of the federal government to pursue political demonstrators is of limited and questionable utility, but the material consequences of such pursuits can be clearly tracked. The FBI’s concerted campaign to drum up hysteria and justify the massive resources spent in chasing anarchists represents a law enforcement trend with loud echoes of McCarthyism, wherein FBI targets were identified by what books they read and with whom they kept company rather than on the basis of criminal acts. Harkening back to an era of blacklists and thought crime, the trend of using grand juries to target holders of unpopular political views represents a real move toward a dangerous and deeply troubling infringement on the civil liberties of all.
Although proportionally the federal government’s targeting of largely white and young political radicals represents a smaller total number of terrorism-related investigations, the pattern of using grand juries as secret forums to ask activists what organizations they belong to, who they associate with and to scrutinize their political beliefs on the basis of “Americanism” closely parallels the hearings held by the House Subcommittee on Unamerican Activities. In this context, the activists in the Pacific Northwest who have vowed not to cooperate with politically motivated grand juries can be seen as canaries in the coal mine and the importance of their resistance to government intimidation cannot be overstated. Regardless of what one may think of the political philosophy, these government-identified anarchists merit widespread support and the gratitude of all who wish to exercise civil liberties so now in question
(via ex-ist)
Exposure Update - The Jimmy Savile Investigation (by JoeDnufc4life)
Interesting look at a UK celebrity who after his death turned out to be a aggressive pedophile who did over 200 sex abuse acts on minors in his life.
How there were coverups and police refused to act on allegations of abuse while he was alive.
Poor Richard's News: California wants to open up jury duty to non-citizens
An idea this phenomenally bad could only have come from the brilliant legal minds in California: jury duty…for non-US citizens.
from Breitbart:
California would allow noncitizens to serve on juries under a proposal being considered by state lawmakers, potentially expanding a fundamental obligation of American life to millions more people.
The measure, which would apply only to legal residents, would make California the only state to open the jury box to noncitizens who meet all other requirements of service, according to legal experts. The proposal raises the question of what it means to be judged by peers in a state where more than one in seven residents is not a citizen. One of the bill’s authors, Assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont), said the proposal would help ensure an adequate pool of jurors, help immigrants integrate into American society and make juries more representative of California.
Juries “should reflect our community, and our community is always changing,” Wieckowski said. “It’s time for California to be a leader on this.” The Assembly passed the bill this week on a party-line vote, with most Democrats lining up in favor and Republicans standing in opposition.
California is setting itself up for legal disaster on this one. There is absolutely no way a law like this will stand up in Federal court. Can you imagine the havoc that will occur when hundreds of guilty verdicts begin to be overturned because members of the jury were non-citizens? The swing votes for crucial cases could be individuals who are not even citizens of the same country as the accused.
Federal judge denies motion to throw out evidence gathered via fake cell tower
In a criminal case on Wednesday, a federal judge denied a motion to suppress evidence gathered with the help of a stingray—a device that can create a false cellphone tower signal.
The use of a stingray allows authorities to determine a specific mobile phone’s precise location. The technology isn’t new and many believe law enforcement agencies nationwide have used them for many years.
» via ars technica
John Stossel - The ObamaCare Regulation Overload (by LibertyPen)
Liberty Without Apologies: It Was My Idea First! [Arguing Against Copyright & Patents] by Kyle Stephens March 28, 2013
[Asderathos: I TOTALLY disagree with this article, I simply post it as a challenging concept which I hope to be better equipped to rebut someday.]
This form of intellectual property is not the form that (some) libertarians have come to abhor. The form of intellectual property that exists today comes is more often than not in the form of copyrights, patents, regulations, laws, etc. (many of the things that Libertarians dislike.) Therefore, it is only natural for Libertarians to dismiss this type of intellectual property without distinguishing this form of intellectual property from true intellectual property.
