Category: IP

A New Firefox (and Chrome) Add On That I Highly Recommend…

No Comments

It’s called MAFIAA Fire (note: it is listed as Experimental on Mozilla.org.)

MAFIAA stands for the Music and Film Industry Association of America, and it redirects from sites that have been seized under conditions of dubious legality by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

I probably never would never have heard of it, except for the fact that the Department of Homeland Security demanded that Mozilla.org pull the plug in:

The Department of Homeland Security has requested that Mozilla, the maker of the Firefox browser, remove an add-on that allows web surfers to access websites whose domain names were seized by the government for copyright infringement, Mozilla’s lawyer said Thursday.

But Mozilla did not remove the MafiaaFire add-on, and instead has demanded the government explain why it should. Two weeks have passed, and the government has not responded to Mozilla’s questions, including whether the government considers the add-on unlawful and whether Mozilla is “legally obligated” to remove it. The DHS has also not provided the organization with a court order requiring its removal, the lawyer said.

“One of the fundamental issues here is under what conditions do intermediaries accede to government requests that have a censorship effect and which may threaten the open internet,” Harvey Anderson, Mozilla’s lawyer, wrote Thursday on his blog.

The net result of this is that the total number of downloads has gone from 6433 when Wired wrote the article to 38,560 as I am writing this.

As JR at the Stellar Parthenon BBS observes, this is a classic example of the Streisand effect.

I’m adding this to my Firefox Extension links (below blogroll on right hand column).

I don’t really have a need to install it, I’ve yet to run into one of the redirected sites, but it’s worth whatever small amount of attention that I can give them.

I’ve listed their developers’ reasons for this software after the break:

Why?

Well, in one word: fairness – and balance of power.

A little while back the scumbag anti-piracy organizations like the RIAA and MPAA (Also known as the Music and Film Industry Association of America – (jokeingly known as the) MAFIAA)  ran to the American government whining like they usually do and got ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) involved with taking down websites – local AND foreign websites, completely overriding the laws and rights of non US / foreign citizens who owned these sites.

These anti-piracy (MAFIAA) companies submitted a wish list of sites that they did not like and ICE (like good lapdogs) started to seize those domains.
(At this point I would like to mention (in fairness) that we are in no way affiliated with the below sites)
Some of the seized domains were perfectly legal, like TorrentFinder.com which only had links to other sites and RojaDirecta.com which was declared to be a legal site in Spain – twice!

“Not all bad men wear masks”
Looking at court documents it becomes obvious that ICE does not do any diligent footwork but takes the music and film industries word as the gospel truth, or are downright sloppy at best.
The best example of how sloppy and mad with power ICE is can be is found in how they took down 84,000 sites for 3 days  in a “mistake”.  These innocent sites were run by small businesses, mom and pop garage startups etc and for 3 days had a big official splash page displayed to all visitors that it had been taken down due to child porn.

It’s hard to bounce back from something like that and it’s a safe bet to assume a lot of businesses / people went belly up because of being wrongly accused of peddling child porn (something the music industry loves, by the way).
To make matters worse there is currently a law being drafted (called COICO) that will make such types of domain name seizures easier.

Enough is enough.

There is a time to bitch and moan and there is a time to take action – the time to be taking action has been long overdue.

Governments around the world are either censoring for the entertainment companie’s never ending woes or using that as an excuse to slowly get more control over the internet for their own agendas – and trampling over our rights in the process.

Before it was “think of the children”, then came “the terrorists win” and now its “piracy”. While there were few genuine exceptions it’s mostly bogeymen, unicorns and leprechauns or the music industries 75 trillion US dollars in losses due to one companies p2p software.

Our right to privacy should outweigh any outdated business model, unfortunately average Joe cannot afford a $10,000 plate dinner to speak to his representatives so his voice is drowned out by the vultures who can pay and get a politician’s ear for “business”.

So The New York Times Has Added a Paywall

No Comments

I’m not sure exactly how it works, so I am unsure how the paywall, which limits you to 20 page views a month, would work off a link to this blog, but, at least for now, it works off of Twitter, so I have created a Twitter account, The Sh%$ I Read on the New York Times, and I will link to that tweet, which will allow one to see the article without having to deal with their paywall.

It appears to me that this is in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of their paywall, since I am manually tweeting the articles.

There are a number of alternatives, most notably the NYTClean applet, and while I might use that myself, I’m not going to put that on my link page, I figure that someone might go all TOS on my flabby white ass and finding a human at Google/Blogger in that case is well nigh impossible.

As to how the paywall will work, the Times had a paywall for a number of years for their opinion pieces, and the net result was that they got a lot less buzz, which is probably why Frank Rich and Bob Herbert both decided to leave the paper in the past few weeks.

The problem with the NYT is too fold, first, and uniquely to them, is the fact that they built, and paid cash for a ruinously expensive new office building in Manhattan, and second, and this is not unique to them, Craigslist is completely eating their lunches in the tremendously profitable classified ads section.

Not sure as to the solution, though any solution should involve cutting Tom Friedman’s travel budget.

Pirate Party Founded in Massachusetts

No Comments

And I know the guy who did it, James “Jamie” O’Keefe:

The Massachusetts Election Division has approved the Massachusetts Pirate Party as a political designation, allowing voters in the state to register as a “Pirate.”

The party strives to increase government transparency, promote personal privacy, reinforce the spread of knowledge through copyright reform, and abolish patents.

“We live in a country founded on the ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” the Massachusetts Pirate Party said in a statement. “For many people, those ideals are not real. The Supreme Court and Congress have expanded the power of corporations and made them more powerful than people. Increasingly government officials ignore open meeting laws, make deals favorable to corporations behind closed doors and sell off our public information to private interests.”

I went to UMass with him.

Note, as the article does, that Jamie is not the criminal asshole who cooks up fraudulent videos.

Note that my inclinations on IP are very similar, though perhaps a bit more moderate, than those of the Pirate Party.

Well, This is a Surprise

No Comments

In the latest twist to the legal travails of Sergey Aleynikov, who is accused of theft of Goldman-Sach’s illegal market front-running high frequency trading software is now arguing that the code in question was open source, so there was no theft:

Sergey Aleynikov, who is accused of stealing Goldman Sachs’ source code used in high-frequency trading, argued that he was standing up to the investment bank’s proprietary claims on open-source code, not trying to steal private codes to use at a competing trading firm.

Mr Aleynikov, a former computer programmer at the bank, is accused of downloading proprietary code related to high-speed trading systems in June 2009 for use at a new job at a competing firm.

While this statement may actually be true, it does strike me as a rather low percentage defense.

Unfortunately, it also implies that we will not be getting any details on how the Vampire Squid and its Wall Street co-conspirators might actually be gaming the system with their co-located high speed trading systems during the trial.

US Comes Out Against Patenting Genes

No Comments

This is a big deal, and a case where a very bad actor forced their hand:

Reversing a longstanding policy, the federal government said on Friday that human and other genes should not be eligible for patents because they are part of nature. The new position could have a huge impact on medicine and on the biotechnology industry.

The new position was declared in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the Department of Justice late Friday in a case involving two human genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer.

“We acknowledge that this conclusion is contrary to the longstanding practice of the Patent and Trademark Office, as well as the practice of the National Institutes of Health and other government agencies that have in the past sought and obtained patents for isolated genomic DNA,” the brief said.

Basically, a company, Myriad Genetics, got a patent on breast cancer genes, it licenses government funded research which found the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, and has used this patent to prevent the development of better and cheaper tests, and their behavior was so egregious that the government felt compelled to act.

It’s still up to the judge, but this is a good first step.

Genes have never been an invention, they have been a discovery, and discoveries are not supposed to be patentable.

All Your Stonehenge Are Belong to Us

No Comments

English Heritage, an organization that manages many of the historical sites in the UK has now sent cease and desist letters to image libraries claiming that they own all rights of all photographs of Stonehenge ever taken:

English Heritage, the organization that runs and manages various historical sites in the UK, such as Stonehenge, has apparently sent letters to various photo sharing and stock photo sites claiming that any photo of Stonehenge that is being sold violates its rights, and only English Heritage can get commercial benefit from such photos. In fact, they’re asking for all money made from such photos, stating: ‘all commercial interest to sell images must be directed to English Heritage.’ As one recipient noted, this seems odd, given that English Heritage has only managed Stonehenge ‘for 27 of the monument’s 4,500 year old history.

All this IP nuttiness is getting on menhir my nerves.

As a commenter noted, the rights to the photographs belong with the aliens what built the monument anyway.

Well, I Missed a Major Decision……

No Comments

Bilski v. Kappos, a business patent case that made it to the Supreme Court was decided 3 months ago. Basically, Bilski had patented a method of hedging energy based on the weather.

The Supreme Court unanimously invalidated the patent, it was after the unique idea that one should bet on the weather, but by a 5-4 majority, they kept the business method patent, albeit with a tightening of standards:

While all nine justices agreed that the “invention” at issue in the case—a method for hedging weather-related risk in energy trading developed by Bernard Bilski and Rand Warsaw—was too abstract to merit patent protection, only four signed on to Kennedy’s opinion.

That opinion held that the “machine-or-transformation” test for patentability–created by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in its Bilski decision–was a “useful clue” when gauging a subject’s patentability but shouldn’t be considered the only applicable test.

I think that this was generally a loss for patent sanity, though it does make getting a business patent more restrictive, though, unsurprisingly, SCOTUS didn’t say how much more restrictive the standards should be.

My earlier posts on the matter.

Federal Courts Rule that Software Publishers Own You

No Comments

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court, and ruled that it’s not a sale, it’s a license, and so they can do whatever they want:

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit today ruled (PDF) on a long-standing case involving used software on eBay, and it came to an important decision: if a company says you don’t have the right to resell a program, you don’t have that right. Could this mean the end of the resale market for all digital content? Yup. But the court says it had no choice.

The case is Vernor v. Autodesk, in which Timothy Vernor made his living from selling items (including software) on eBay. Vernor had picked up some old copies of AutoCAD from an architect’s office sale, complete with their serial numbers, and he put them up on eBay noting that they were not currently installed on any computer. Sounds legal, right?

But there’s a catch. Autodesk, the software’s developer, forced all users to accept an agreement before using AutoCAD. This agreement made clear that AutoCAD was merely licensed, never sold, and that one’s license was non-transferable. Further, a licensee could not rent, lease, or sell the software to anyone else; you couldn’t even physically transfer the discs out of the Western Hemisphere (!). Finally, if you upgraded to a new version, the old version had to be destroyed.

That sound that you hear is the stock price of Gamestop falling like the 54th floor of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Almost every single video game out there bans resale in the license, or as Aris Technica notes, “So, to recap: EULAs are binding, they can control just about everything you might dream up, and only Congress can change the situation.”

This means that a publisher can deactivate your software wherever, and whenever they want, so long as they have it in the license, or they have a section of the license that allows them to change their license whenever they want, like credit card companies do.

Call your congresscritter, and look hard at open source software.

So Now You Can Patent Recipes

No Comments

It appears that a French company has patented Plumpy’nut, a fortified peanut butter as a treatment for severe malnutrition:

Should a revolutionary humanitarian food product be protected by commercial patent, when lifting restrictions might save millions of starving children?

That is the moral conundrum at the heart of a bitter transatlantic legal dispute.

On one side are the French inventors of Plumpy’nut, a peanut paste which in the last five years has transformed treatment of acute malnutrition in Africa.

Nutriset, the Normandy-based company, says the patent is needed to safeguard production of Plumpy’nut in the developing world, and to stop the market being swamped by cheap US surpluses.

And on the other side are two American not-for-profit organisations that have filed a suit at a Washington DC federal court to have the patent overturned.

They say they are being stopped by Nutriset from manufacturing similar – and cheaper – peanut-based food products, despite the proven demand from aid agencies.

“By their actions, Nutriset are preventing malnourished children from getting what they need to survive. It is as simple as that,” said Mike Mellace, of the San Diego-based Mama Cares Foundation.

I will spare you the picture of the severely malnourished child in the article, but it appears to me that this patent is not only morally indefensible, but also a very real expansion of IP law to an area where it had not previously applied, recipes, which are rather famously not covered by copyright (see here), and the patent appears to be rather broad, covering pretty much every nut based food with milk in it, which would include the Nutella from which Plumpy’nut was originally derived.

The problem here is that the other potential players in this market (EVIL term, that) are all small not for profits who would be driven to extinction with a loss in a patent court.

One solution here is to make patents like civil rights law, and allow people to file suit before infringing, for the same reason that they do with civil rights suits: because the chilling effect occurs even if no one breaks the law.

Another Reason to Fix IP Law

No Comments

I thought that I did a good job of following patent law, but I was unaware that it is illegal, or more accurately a civil tort, for a company to claim a patent after it has expired.

So, if I were to get patent number 867-5309, someone could sue me for anticompetitive behavior if I were to continue to claim that my product were still protected.

Well, recent court cases have vastly expanded the law, taking this from a $500.00 award to a $500.00 award per offense, which means that it applies to each product shipped:

Marking a tube of toothpaste or paper cup with a patent that is out of date or doesn’t exist has been against the law for years. It is considered anticompetitive. Until late last year, the most a violator had to worry about was paying a $500 penalty for misleading the public.

But in December, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington ruled that defendants could be held responsible for up to $500 per offense.
Document

Lawyers for product manufacturers now fear clients are liable for up to $500 for every tube of mascara or box of garbage bags marked with an expired patent—an error that turns out to be quite common.

Now, I’m sure that the holders of patents will be lobbying Congress to fix this.

Call your Representative, and tell him, that absent meaningful change, which rolling back the expansion of patents (discovered genes, species, software, business plans, tax deductions, etc.) that have perverted the purpose of Patents in the past few decades.

Stricter rules on what is, and is not, “obvious”, as well as changes to make it harder for patent trolls would help too.

No Comments
Click for full size


A better recruiting tool Osama never had

It appears that there is a company that carts around decommissioned missiles and jet cockpits to hospitals and the like, in order to amuse the children.

They actually have filed for a patent for their business model, “Business Promotion Via Mobile Interactive Aviation Museum,” yet another indication that our IP system is badly out of whack.

Of course, that’s just one bad patent out of hundreds that are granted every month by the over worked USPTO, which would ordinarily not merit much comment.

What does merit comment is the fact that they are donating dummy missiles for demonstrations that the bigots opposing the 51 Park Islamic center are holding.

Just how Broken is Our Government?

No Comments

Well, how about a lobbying group brazenly using its ability to bribe members of Congress in an attempt to get an industry to target its own customers with onerous positions:

The Recording Industry Association of America said on Monday that current U.S. copyright law is so broken that it “isn’t working” for content creators any longer.

RIAA President Cary Sherman said the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act contains loopholes that allow broadband providers and Web companies to turn a blind eye to customers’ unlawful activities without suffering any legal consequences.

…………

This seems like innocuous whine, the sort that we have heard from the RIAA, the MPAA, the BSA for years, but it’s the threat that caught my eye:

In response to a question from CNET, Sherman said it may be necessary for the U.S. Congress to enact a new law formalizing agreements with intermediaries such as broadband providers, Web hosts, payment processors, and search engines.

The RIAA would strongly prefer informal agreements inked with intermediaries, Sherman said: “We’re working on [discussions with broadband providers], and we’d like to extend that kind of relationship–not just to ISPs, but [also to] search engines, payment processors, advertisers.”

But, Sherman said, “if legislation is an appropriate way to facilitate that kind of cooperation, fine.”

The basic attitude here is that they can ask Congress to jump, and the only response will be the query, “how high?”

It is a revolting state of affairs.

It should be noted that RIAA chief Cary Sherman later “clarified”, saying that, “A broader law enacted without their cooperation isn’t what the RIAA wants,” which really more a restatement of the the threat than anything else.

I hope that attitudes toward IP, and IP absolutism, are changing slowly. It seems to me that they are, largely as a result of the Blackberry case, when a patent troll nearly shut down the Blackberries in the US, in fact RIM’s inability to separate commercial users from government users is in large part why the troll finally settled, they realized that judges deprived of their “Crackberries” can get stroppy.

IP and Protecting the Incumbent Players

1 Comment

Once again, the Obama administration has gone for a maximalist position on IP, and they are looking at making radio stations start paying license fees to performers, aka a “public performance right”:

The recording industry scored a significant victory today with news that the Obama administration will provide its “strong support” for the Performance Rights Act. The bill would force over-the-air radio stations to start coughing up cash for the music they play; right now, the stations pay songwriters, but not the actual recording artists.

I will say that this is a basically fair, since web broadcasters, satellite radio have to pay these fees, and the status of Radio is a historical artifact dating back something like 70 years.

The record distributors love this, and the radio stations (rather unsurprisingly) hate this law.

This, in and of itself, is neither surprising, nor particularly interesting to me.

What is interesting is that the RIAA is trying to cut a Verizon/Google type deal on this:

Music labels and radio broadcasters can’t agree on much, including whether radio should be forced to turn over hundreds of millions of dollars a year to pay for the music it plays. But the two sides can agree on this: Congress should mandate that FM radio receivers be built into cell phones, PDAs, and other portable electronics.

The Consumer Electronics Association, whose members build the devices that would be affected by such a directive, is incandescent with rage. “The backroom scheme of the [National Association of Broadcasters] and RIAA to have Congress mandate broadcast radios in portable devices, including mobile phones, is the height of absurdity,” thundered CEA president Gary Shapiro. Such a move is “not in our national interest.”

This is really pretty absurd. If you have an MP3 player, you can play the song that you want, and not tune into the repetitive crap that comes out of the increasingly conglomerate dominated commercial FM airwaves, though I could see listening to a sporting event.

On a deeper level though, this is profoundly disturbing, because it shows how blatant the incumbents in various segments of our society have become in divvying up the spoils through as privileged participants in the legislative process.

If people really want to change the tenor of Washington, they should start by taking on this sort of corruption head on, and get to Republicans and Democrats calling each other names later.

The FBI Gets Stupid

No Comments
Click for full size


J. Edgar Hoover can bite my shiny metal ass!

This bit of FBI stupidity is a pretty good indication of how the current IP regime, and what people think the current IP regime is is a clusterf%$#:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has taken on everyone from Al Capone to John Dillinger to the Unabomber. Its latest adversary: Wikipedia.

The bureau wrote a letter in July to the Wikimedia Foundation, the parent organization of Wikipedia, demanding that it take down an image of the F.B.I. seal accompanying an article on the bureau, and threatened litigation: “Failure to comply may result in further legal action. We appreciate your timely attention to this matter.”

The problem, those at Wikipedia say, is that the law cited in the F.B.I.’s letter is largely about keeping people from flashing fake badges or profiting from the use of the seal, and not about posting images on noncommercial Web sites. Many sites, including the online version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, display the seal.

Other organizations might simply back down. But Wikipedia sent back a politely feisty response, stating that the bureau’s lawyers had misquoted the law. “While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version” that the F.B.I. had provided.

I can understand if it’s some smart ass blogger telling J. Edgar Hoover, “Bite their shiny metal ass,”* but this is a post of the seal on a damn encyclopedia.

Morons.

*Somehow, I don’t think that the G-men are coming after me, and neither does the New York Times, who also reproduced the seal.

About a Lot More Than the iPhone

No Comments

The Library of Congress, which has the power to create exemptions to the DMCA, has has made just released very significant carve outs, though to read the New York Times, it’s all about the iPhone.

You see, two of the things that are now allowed under the ruling are software to “jailbreak” the iPhone, both to allow non-Apple™ App Store applications, and to use the iPhone on a non AT&T networks.

Actually, this applies to all cell phones, but this is not a big deal.

What you also have is:

  • The right to rip short videos from DVDs for the educational and criticism purposes.
  • Defeating video game encryption for, “The purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities”.
  • Circumventing dongles when they become obsolete or exit manufacture.
  • Allowing circumvention of technical measures on E-Books to allow them to be read aloud.

This is stunning. It is consumer friendly, good policy, and common sense.

I would never have expected any of the three things to happen with the US copyright establishment.

I must therefore assume that this was as a result of input from political appointees in the USPTO and Library of Congress, this is fairly radical for career bureaucrats, and as such we need to give the White House credit.

I will note that there is still a work around that Apple™ could use which would make non App Store applications illegal, by using the Sega strategy, which involved using a verification key (the letters S-E-G-A) which would load the banner message, “PRODUCED BY OR UNDER LICENSE FROM SEGA ENTERPRISES LTD,” before the program loaded (thanks for the legal research from DC at SP), which made jail-breaking the console a trademark violation.

I don’t see Apple™ doing this, I think that it would unleash regulatory and customer blow-back, but the legal precedent remains there.

Link to the official anti-circumvention rule-making.

Judges Start to Question Sanity of Copyright Awards

No Comments

Two judges have now slashed awards for copyright violations by around 90%:

In fact, according to Gertner, they trampled the Constitution’s “Due Process” clause. In a ruling today, the judge slashed the $675,000 award by a factor of 10, to $67,500.
Two for two

If it sounds like a familiar result, it should. In Minnesota, Judge Michael Davis used a different legal approach called remittitur to lower Jammie Thomas-Rasset’s liability from $1.9 million to $2,250 per song. That amount is three times higher than the $750 minimum for statutory damages, and Judge Gertner has accepted both Judge Davis’ number and his reasoning when issuing her own opinion.

“Weighing all of these considerations, I conclude that the jury’s award of $675,000 in statutory damages for Tenenbaum’s infringement of thirty copyrighted works is unconstitutionally excessive,” she wrote. “This award is far greater than necessary to serve the government’s legitimate interests in compensating copyright owners and deterring infringement. In fact, it bears no meaningful relationship to these objectives. To borrow Chief Judge Michael J. Davis’ characterization of a smaller statutory damages award in an analogous file-sharing case, the award here is simply ‘unprecedented and oppressive.'”

This is a good thing. The previous award levels did nothing additional to deter people who violated the exclusive licenses that are a part of IP, but they did make it much easier for bottom feeding legal firms to prey on technically non-astute parents and people who were innocent.

There is a whole lot of what could only be described as shake downs being promulgated by agents of the RIAA and the MPAA, and hopefully, this will put a crimp in those ghouls’ business.

Obama Tries to Prove Rush Limbaugh Right

1 Comment

Unfortunately, no one notices.

The Obama administration is looking to implement draconian new IP laws that will literally criminalize certain types of thought:

While they may never be able to truly defeat piracy and drive it from the lurking depths of the internet, copyright protection attack-dog organizations like the RIAA and MPAA have long dreamed of the day when they would no longer have to pay for their own copyright enforcement. Now that dream is on the verge of coming true, thanks to the Obama administration.

……

The White House’s vision is perhaps a prelude to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which will go before Congress later this year. The bill would make P2P or BitTorrent client development a criminal offense if the distributed software was used for infringement. It also implements an interesting provision called “imminent infringement”, which allows the government to charge people who they think might be about to infringe with a civil offense (for example if you searched “torrent daft punk”). This is among the first official “thought crime” provisions to be proposed by the U.S. government. The bill also makes it a criminal offense to bypass DRM.

As I have said before, IP law is, at its core, public interest law, as is clearly stated in the Constitution, and this stuff is just nuts.

It does not serve anyone to spend taxpayer money to enforce private licenses, particularly not when doing so implies a regime that would have Eric Arthur Blair* spinning in his grave.

*Better known by his nom de plume, George Orwell.

Viacom Case Against Google Thrown Out

No Comments

The judge said that the safe harbor provision of the DMCA indemnifies Google, and granted Google’s motion for summary judgement, and dismissed Viacom’s lawsuit against Google/Youtube.

My guess is the fact that Viacom was itself posting illegal material to Youtube as a pretext for the lawsuit had a lot to do with this.

I will note that the author, Greg Sandoval quoted an “expert” from the libertarian group the PFF saying that it would be overturned without noting that both litigants funded the organization.

That’s just sloppy.

OK, This is Stupid

1 Comment
Click for full size

This an April fools gag


This is someone doing WAY too many drugs.

ThinkGeek gets what they call, their best cease & desist letter ever, from the National Pork Board telling them that they are violating their trademark by describing Unicorn meat as, “The other white meat,” for which ThinkGeek, tongue planted firmly in cheek, apologizes:

“It was never our intention to cause a national crisis and misguide American citizens regarding the differences between the pig and the unicorn,” said Scott Kauffman, President and CEO of Geeknet. “In fact, ThinkGeek’s canned unicorn meat is sparkly, a bit red, and not approved by any government entity.”

Heh.

I Suppose that this Was Inevitable

No Comments
Could it be ………… Satan?

GameStation, a UK video games retailer, has entered the final frontier of click-through licensing, it has added ownership of users immortal souls as one of the conditions of the agreement:

Popular UK video games retail company GameStation has claimed that the retailer legally owns the ‘immortal souls’ of thousands of online shoppers thanks to a clause in the ‘Terms and Conditions’ documents, which, sadly most customers don’t read before purchasing an item online.

GameStation reported that, as a part of the April Fool’s day gag, the retailer changed the online ‘Terms and Conditions’ form and added the so-called ‘Immortal Soul’ clause, which read that “By placing an order via this web site on the first day of the fourth month of the year 2010 Anno Domini, you agree to grant us a non transferable option to claim, for now and for ever more, your immortal soul.”

Unsurprisingly, very few people notices, and very few opted out of this requirement:

GameStation also offered customers a chance to reclaim their souls by clicking on the ‘opt out’ button at the end of the document.

However, out of the 8500 customers that visited the retail site on that day, only 12 percent of them managed to read the ‘Immortal Soul’ clause and swiftly saved their souls from damnation by opting out.

I think that it is clear that to the degree that Satan exists in the manner of Zoroastrian/Christian concept,* he is kicking himself for not having come up with this earlier.

*The idea of Satan being an entity in direct opposition to God is largely a Zoroastrian concept, which was adopted by Christianity. In Judaism, Satan is a title which means adversary, though perhaps a better translation is prosecutor, and is more the inclination to do evil than the guy with the horns and tail.