The Internet is a wonderful thing. Yes there are nasties out there like child perps. (scum) But there are upsides too. One of the axioms of the ‘Net is if you intend to slander, defame, sue, or press legal action you better have your ducks in a row. It appears that especially true for those with a nefarious nature. Case in point –

A Western Michigan University student is giving a Kalamazoo towing company a costly lesson in customer service and the power of the Internet.

The problem began in January when T&J Towing removed Justin Kurtz’s car from his apartment complex parking lot, saying he didn’t have a parking permit. Kurtz, 21, said he had a permit, but the tow crew scraped it off his windshield to justify taking his car.

After getting nowhere with the company and paying $118 to get his car back, Kurtz created a Facebook page, “Kalamazoo Residents Against T&J Towing,” which has attracted more than 11,000 members since February, many with similar complaints about the company.

For firms that have a larcenous streak the power of Facebook can be a powerful thing. 11,000 friends many also wronged by the towing company makes for a very stong witness list when on goes to court. The real power of the Internet is the ability to transform a very big town into a small village where everyone knows everyone else’s business. For fly by nighters that is deadly.

Linky.

Has Art Brodsky lost his grip? His posting over at Public Knowledge has to be one of the lamest lines of defense ever offered as a basis for over turning the Rule of Law. Kindness of Strangers be damned!

Mr Brodsky starts with using the Ides of March reversal technique –

Of course, the story isn’t all that simple, is it? Because the hidden story of Comcast’s glorious victory is that if Comcast were smart, it wouldn’t in the first place have brought the case, which challenged the FCC’s authority over the company’s high-speed Internet service. Some in the telecommunications industry, perhaps even huge companies with three letters in its name, urged (begged?) Comcast not to take the FCC’s ruling to court, because of the possibility that Comcast could actually win and, potentially, win big —which is what happened.

The reason that the Telcos like the arrangement Art is that it extended their LATA boundary relationships into the non regulated digital environment without so much as a legal skirmish. And what’s this dismissive alluding but not naming? Its AT&T, VZ, Sprint. Don’t be so damn coy.

But where is the standing on damages to the industry that Mr. Brodsky intones? He offers two — Depend on the Kindness of Strangers, and Waiting for Godot. In the former case he charges that depending on the big firms for telecommunications advancement has led us on a downward spiral in terms of global competitiveness. There is some truth to that but not the whole truth. For who is the hand maiden leading the spiraling down the drain but the FCC itself. Then in the latter case we have this –

We can’t depend on unelected bureaucrats to deal with topics as essential as broadband, because the result could be “excessive and burdensome regulation” on those humble, hard-working telephone and cable companies who unfairly change the rules without any reason at all.

And to you I say, NO we cannot trust bureaucrats with damn near anything including telecommunications. If for no other reason that the concept of the Lack of Sufficient Knowledge on a continuing basis.

But thru all of Mr. Brodsky’s missive is this gem –

… Practically speaking (even if there is a very slim legal opening), broadband is free from regulation – a nirvana that the telecoms industry might once upon a time have gratefully accepted as its due, but now looks upon it with some trepidation because now the door has swung wide open to a full-scale discussion of bringing Internet broadband access services back under reasonable regulation.

Two counts here. Brodsky’s ox has been gored by this ruling yet now the door has been swung open for reasonable regulation? By what variant of a pharmaceutical does he come to this conclusion? Its an election year fella. The chances of a Democratic Congress taking this up is slim to none. Plus if the tea leaves are right the Republican Congress next year won’t have the cycle time to touch it either. The second is under proper procedure, the FCC being a creature of Congress should make the necessary request for an expansion of its authority by the proper means, not some gerrymandered legal trick with a wink and a nod. But Mr. Brodsky the FCC DOES NOT possess the authority to overstate its intended alloted powers. Or do I assume you are willing to abrogate the rule of law to achieve your statist aims under the color of consumer protection. How Stalinist.
More on Balderdash!

Its the big item on Drudge right now. Its all abuzz on the Tech Blogs. But if you had been a consistent ThirdPipe reader you would have known the likely outcome of all this back on Jan 10. That is when I posted this piece. And since we knew this already, we can’t add ‘unexpectedly’ to the title of this posting.

And there are no surprises. It went down pretty much as the Court drafted in their memorandum back to the FCC. So what now? Well probably nothing unless the powers that be start edging Congress to expand the FCC’s statutory authority. However I don’t see that happening in a political election year.

So welcome back to the future — 2004 edition!

That is what a 3 judge panel of the first District Court of Appeals just did in the case of Comast vs FCC. The Panel offered the ruling as memorandum, not binding, but telegraphing the Courts observations and if affirmed by the full bench sets the FCC on its ear. –

Federal appeals court gave notice Friday it likely would reject the Federal Communications Commission’s authority to sanction Comcast for throttling peer-to-peer applications.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit suggested as much during oral arguments with the FCC and Comcast. The Philadelphia-based cable concern is appealing the agency’s 2008 decision ordering it to stop hampering the peer-to-peer service BitTorrent as a traffic-management practice.

The order was in response to complaints Comcast was sending fake signals to users of BitTorrent, a bandwidth-heavy protocol often used to pirate copyright content.

“You have yet to identify a specific statute,” Judge Raymond Randolph told an FCC lawyer regarding the legal authority to ding Comcast.

To be sure, Friday’s reaction to the appellate court hearing made it increasingly clear the Obama administration’s FCC has been preparing for a defeat concerning net neutrality (.pdf), one of the largest issues surrounding internet freedom.

The upshot of this memo? —

* Net Neutrality as it has been proposed since Chairman Martin’s tenure may not survive in its current form if it survives at all.

* That the FCC may not even have the authority to regulate in this area as no controlling regulatory clause has been found by the court.

* That the 30% rule fostered by the FCC on the cable industry is willful and capricious. The panel summarily vacated that baseline without standing in current rule making by the FCC itself.

* Has political implications beyond the scope of this blog.

In many ways we are right back to 2004 in regards to carriers regard to traffic management, FCC’s role in this issue and the very nature of Net Neutrality.

Linky.
Full Finding here.

BlueHippo had sought bankruptcy reorganization protection last month when its payment processor’s bank unexpectedly blocked its funds, leaving the company unable to pay creditors. BlueHippo petitioned a Delaware bankruptcy court judge to allow the funds to be released to the company, but its request was denied on Dec. 2, according to court records.

Without access to the funds held by Checkgateway LLC, BlueHippo “will not be able to satisfy administrative expenses that will continue to accrue if these cases are maintained in Chapter 11 [reorganization],” according to the filing. The company has a bankruptcy court hearing on its Chapter 7 motion on Dec. 23.

With that the Blue Hippo seems on its last legs. We have cautioned about being involved with this firm in the past. The world for most of us will be a better place without them.

Link

COSHOCTON — A free service enjoyed by hundreds has been shut down due to illegal activity conducted by one individual.

“It’s unfortunate that one person ruins it for those who use the service legitimately,” said Commissioner Gary Fisher.

About five years ago, the county made a free wireless Internet connection available in the block surrounding the Coshocton County Courthouse at 318 Main St.

It was disabled last week after someone used the wireless local area network address to illegally download a movie.

The county’s Internet Service Provider — OneCommunity — was notified by Sony Pictures Entertainment about the breach, and the county’s Information Technology Department was in turn notified by OneCommunity.

Yes you got it. The actions of one person has ruined it for a whole town. Which is the problem with the current state of law in the realm of Internet Law. The innocent suffer along with the guilty.

‘Nuf Said?

Linky.

This is a little off the beaten track for this blog. But it does bring up some interesting perspectives vis a vis the Internet —

Austin Police Chief Art Acevedo says he and some of his officers have been harassed, lied about and had their identities falsely used in online blogs and in reader comment sections on local media Internet sites.

They’ve had enough.

In a meeting this month with department brass, Acevedo and the group discussed how they think such posts erode public trust in the department and how they have been wrongly maligned.

They have since researched their legal options and decided that from now on, they might launch formal investigations into such posts, Acevedo said. He said investigators might seek search warrants or subpoenas from judges to learn the identities of the authors — he thinks some could be department employees — and possibly sue them for libel or file charges if investigators think a crime was committed.

“A lot of my people feel it is time to take these people on,” Acevedo said. “They understand the damage to the organization, and quite frankly, when people are willfully misleading and lying, they are pretty much cowards anyway because they are doing so under the cloak of anonymity.”

So lets take the obvious on shall we? Brick Brac’s online usually indicate a more invective problem inside the organization. In a sense HR 101. You have some employees that think they have been treated unfairly and have no formal means to complain, whether true or not. Maybe they have a supervisor whose a tough nut. Does not matter, the aggrieved party will seek alternate means of venting. Today that is often the Internet. So the postings on the Internet are the symptom not the disease. So the chief might want to get out from behind the desk and do some management by walking around. He might pick up on the vibes from the rank and file. It is the only way to bypass the middle management filter.

As to going after posters. Well go for it, but it is probably not going to be as productive as you expect. ISP’s don’t have to give you ID’s unless you can show they are part of a criminal action. You have to show cause which is tough on the ‘Net. Then even when you have that, once you get to court you would have to show malice and fore thought on the part of the poster. Harder yet to prove. Then even after you go through all that effort, if it is an employee, think of the morale downer that will be once the grapevine spreads it around.

My last question to the Chief is do you apply the same standards to the Press if they use anonymity? Its one of their stock in trade techniques. Would you consider it appropriate to take equal action against say the Statesman? If you would not, then what is your differentiator? The Press has no more privileges that a private citizen has.

You guys have a tough job just like any other PD. People telling lies makes the job harder for sure. But people have been doing that long before the Internet came along. You will only win however if in your search for the source(s), having found them, dig deeper for the cause. Especially if it turns out to be an employee.

In fairness, Chief if you want rebuttal, we will make it available.

The asshats at ASCAP are now making waves that ringtones are derivative works of commercial art and therefore due an payable. Why this is a scam after the jump –

Internet watchdog Electronic Frontier Foundation has hit out at a US music royalties collector, accusing it of making “outlandish copyright claims” about mobile phone ringtones.

The American Society of Composer, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) filed a lawsuit against telecoms giant AT&T, in which it told a federal court that ringtones fell under the public perfomance Copyright Act.

ASCAP collects royalties and licences on behalf of 350,000 members in the US.

In effect, the organisation is gunning for additional payments from mobile firms, and if they don’t cough up the royalties ASCAP could claim copyright infringement against mobile users, according to the EFF.

The lobby group responded by filing an amicus brief* for the case earlier this week in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The brief, which was also joined by the Center for Democracy and Technology and Public Knowledge, urged the federal court to reject what the EFF described as “bogus copyright claims… that could raise costs for consumers, jeopardise consumer rights, and curtail new technological innovation”.

Here’s the clue this is a con job. The threat that ASCAP is throwing around is that they will go after the carriers customers. BUT, they won’t if the likes of AT&T, Verizon and Sprint pay up for them. This is the typical lawyer trick. Don’t go after the violator, go after the peripheral player in the affair that possess deep pockets. Always go after the deep pockets is the lawyers choice. That is the tip off this is a legal scam.

Linky.

In what has to be the biggest Hail Mary on record, the defendants in the Pirate Bay case will NOT be retried. As you may recall, a mistrial was requested after discovery that the judge in the case had dealings/relationships with entitles that the defendants had supposedly defrauded. But it is not all good either –

A Swedish appellate court ruled Thursday there would be no retrial in the Pirate Bay case, despite accusations the trial judge was biased against the four founders of the world’s most notorious BitTorrent tracker.

“We have reached the conclusion that we do not agree with the conflict of interest claim,” Sweden Court of Appeal Judge Anders Eka told Swedish media. In the appellate court’s written opinion, the three-judge panel said that backing “the principles” of copyright law “cannot be considered bias.”

In denying the appeal the original finding stands and the defendants must cough up the dough and face the jailer. Course in the end, they probably win again. With the right greasing of the palms Pirate Bay could be running in Khakistan in weeks.

Linky.

Left to their own devices, lawyers tend to be pretty deliberate predators. That means most of us with limited net worth are not likely to do battle with one of them operating on his or her own nickel.  The RIAA has made plenty of enemies with its shoot first, ask questions later tactics in prosecuting file sharers and may have broken a few laws in the process. Since RIAA does have deep pockets, it should come as no surprise that enterprising lawyers are filing a class action suit on behalf of the victims of RIAA’s legal adventures. I have little doubt that the victim’s won’t be getting much of the spoils, but watching the RIAA take a good beating may be a justice enough for many of those it harmed.

Not content simply to defend Jammie Thomas-Rasset in her high-profile retrial next week in Minnesota, lawyer Kiwi Camara is joining forces with Harvard Law professor Charles Nesson to file a class-action lawsuit against the recording industry later this summer. The goal is nothing less than to force the industry to pay back the alleged “$100+ million” it has collected over the last few years. (Ars Technica)

You can bet the MPAA is in the crosshairs.  While defending file sharers is a little dubious, there’s a larger issue with the DMCA. It criminalizes any of us who convert digital media from one format to another for our own use. If there’s a really benevolent attorney out there looking to self promote, it’s high time that this unconstitutional law gets a challenge inthe courts. Most of Congress has been too completely corrupted by big media to undo it. The courts may very well be the next best hope we have to restore fair use rights in America.