So the Center for Copyright Information is buying Twitter ads. Probably a good start, since if you're going to selling leeches as medical care you better have a good marketing campaign.

I checked out their site and quickly found a variety of things to anger up the blood. Some highlights follow. This isn't terribly well organized and is just ranting; the Electronic Frontiers Foundation has a more formal, more carefully researched response to the CCI.

From "From Where I Sit" (Backup link), the page their Twitter ad links to:

Last July, I learned that after two years of negotiation the nation’s largest content companies signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under which they planned to educate consumers about ways to enjoy content legally and avoid the pitfalls of illegal content distribution.

...

I was intrigued because, despite their divergent interests, these parties were working hard to build a multi-stakeholder solution that would address the needs of consumers and content owners alike, while avoiding government intervention.

If this is designed to address the needs of consumers and content owners alike, why weren't consumers at the negotiating table for these last two years. Also, how do the nation's largest content companies have "divergent interests?" They all pretty much want the same thing: the most draconian copyright laws they can get. Negotiating didn't take two years because they disagreed, it took two years to figure out what they could get away with.

From "Frequently Asked Questions" (Backup link):

The alerts will also inform consumers of the potential dangers of illegal file sharing, including their increased risk of exposure to computer viruses, spyware and other malware, and identity theft.

You know what has pretty much the exact same risk? Browsing the web. Apparently CCI is taking plays from the conservative anti-sex anti-abortion playbook, implying that rare events represent serious threats and demanding abstinence where simple protections are highly effective.

These alerts will be similar to current credit card fraud alerts. Today, when fraud is detected on a consumer’s credit card account, the credit card company notifies the consumer by an email, a text message or a phone call. Like credit card fraud alerts, Copyright Alerts are intended to be educational for consumers.

A credit card fraud alert is hardly "educational." By that standard your car alarm going off is "educational." Copyright alerts are threats.

Under this system copyright holders will notify a participating ISP when they believe their copyrights are being misused online by a specific computer (identified by its Internet Protocol (“IP”) address which indicates the connection to the Internet).

An IP address identifies a specific computer in much the same way that a street address to a building identifies a specific person inside. Sure, maybe only one person lives there, but it could be shared by several people. Heck an entire apartment building with hundreds of occupants might be sharing a street address and an IP address.

Alerts will be non-punitive but progressive in scale. ... For subscribers who repeatedly fail to respond to alerts, the alerts will inform them of steps that will be taken to mitigate the ongoing distribution of copyrighted content.

...

Once a consumer has failed to respond, mitigation measures might include temporary reductions of Internet speeds, redirection to a landing page until the subscriber contacts the ISP to discuss the matter or reviews and responds to educational information about copyright, or other measures that the ISP may deem necessary to help resolve the matter. These steps will only be taken after multiple alerts and a failure by the subscriber to respond. This system consists of 4-6 alerts, at the discretion of each ISP.

It's non-punitive, they may just cut off your ability to browse the web.

Also, who is paying for your internet service? Is it the CCI? I doubt it. No, you do. So why can the CCI have your service restricted? There is no legal obligation from internet service providers to do this. Any ISP that agrees to this has decided that a third party is more important than their very own customers.

...some subscribers may not realize that their home network is insufficiently secured, so facilitating neighbors or other unauthorized users to access it and use it for these purposes.

The CCI has essentially declared having an open wireless network (which is legal and very convenient for guests) can get your internet crippled.

No. This alert system does not, in any circumstance, require the ISP to terminate a subscriber account. This alert system is intended to notify and educate the subscriber.

If the goal is just to notify and educate, why the mitigation measures. Are you saying that I can simply call the ISP, say, "Yup, I know what's going on and don't care" and they'll turn off the internet restrictions? HA!

Before a Mitigation Measure is imposed, a subscriber may request independent review. To request an independent review, there is a $35 filing fee, which is waivable by the independent review body. This is a non-exclusive procedure, and any subscriber may choose to challenge any action in a court of law.

If you feel you've been unfairly or unreasonably targetted, don't worry about it, you can just spend more money to get the internet service you thought you were paying for in the first place.

Since most subscribers do not download or upload pirated content, the vast majority of subscribers likely will never see a Copyright Alert.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

This might be true if you ignore the "download" part. It's actually a bit odd they mentioned it, since if you just download something with absolutely no uploads, you are simultaneously very hard to detect and even harder to sue; all of the file sharing lawsuits to date have been about uploading, not downloading.

But, anyway, if you've ever watched a video on YouTube that violated copyright, maybe a few minute clip a television show, that angry Hitler clip from Downfall, or been Rick'rolled congratulations, you've downloaded pirated content! Try to find someone who uses the internet who hasn't done any of those things.

19. Isn’t this just about ISPs trying to reduce online traffic?

No. The fastest-growing segment of web traffic is legal online content, and the CAS will encourage subscribers to experience it.

Notice what they didn't say that legal online content was the largest share of traffic, just that legal content is the fastest growing. It could very well be that 95.0% of all traffic is copyright infringement and that legal content is growing 0.5% a year, faster than anything else. That's an unlikely situation, but their avoidance of actual traffic numbers makes me suspicious.

20. Isn’t the distribution of copyrighted content driven by the fact that consumers can’t get legal movies and music online?

There are many legitimate options for consumers who want their movies, TV shows and music online and on the go.

So where exactly can I watch Game of Thrones again?. Kiss my ass.

In addition to exposure from violating copyright law and published policies, viruses, malware and spyware described above, the use of P2P applications can expose a consumer’s bank account numbers, tax returns, and sensitive health information to other P2P users.

Of course you can also expose that information to other people using applications like your email client or your web browser. In related news, I assume the CCI wants to ban automobiles, since their use can and does kill people.

From their front page (backup link):

Content Theft Costs America: More than 373,000 Jobs

Copyright infringement is so terrible absolutely nobody works in the content creation industries (jump to 2:52 in the video)

Content Theft Costs America:

...

• Some $16 Billion in Lost Wages
• $2.6 Billion in Lost Taxes

$2.6B in lost taxes. $16B in lost wages. So people working in the content industries pay about 16.25% in taxes. I wish my tax rate was that low.

From "The Facts About Copyright Infringement":

According to Congressional testimony, the number of hackers searching for sensitive records rose by nearly 60 percent in one year and, of the consumers who had inadvertently disclosed sensitive information over P2P networks, unauthorized third parties had accessed that information in nearly 87 percent of cases.

This is the equivalent to reporting that thieves checking for unlocked cars rose by 60% in one year, and that 87% of people who left their cars unlocked had things stolen from them. Sounds scary, but if only 0.00001% of people leave their cars unlocked, this is a non-problem.

.

Ultimately, if viruses, identity theft, and legal damages were serious threats, oneline copyright infringement would have dried up. The only reason the industry is so keen on the CCI is because the risks are incredibly low. The CCI isn't offering balance. They're don't care about helping consumers. The CCI wants to scare people. They want the ISP you pay for to work for them, not you. They want to stop people from legally sharing the internet service they pay for. The CCI is willing to conspire against you and spread falsehoods to accomplish this. That's not honest or ethical.

It took a half-dozen incidents, but I've learned to not get delivery from the Roman Candle in Fitchburg. This is frustrating. I love Roman Candle's pizza. I love their roasted red pepper soup. But the delivery service is terrible.

We place semi-regular orders for our Friday night gaming group. Over the course of several months, we've had drivers show up missing parts of the order on several occasions. On one occasion we called to check on an order 90 minutes after we made the order. They assured us the order was almost ready to go. They called back a few minutes later to tell us that they had just run out of soup. They knew we wanted soup for 90 minutes, but it didn't occur to them to ensure they could fulfill the order. Today I was on hold for 15 minutes before I was able to reach someone. The driver arrived missing part of the order again.

No more delivery from Roman Candle in Fitchburg. A friend passes by the Roman Candle in Middleton on his way to game. If we want Roman Candle and can schedule in advance, we'll order pickup from Middleton and have out friend grab it. Otherwise we'll do without, because we can't trust the Fitchburg branch.

A random thought about tort reform.

If I plan to make money, and that plan necessitates the death of someone, I'm guilty of first degree murder. At a minimum I'll receive a sentence of 20 years,. Assuming I live the expected 75 years, that's 25% of my life. I'll lose more than 25% of my expected lifetime income, probably much more because getting a job as a released convict is hard.

If a corporation has a plan to make money, and that plan necessitates the death of someone, the penalty will be financial. A corporation will face less than $10 million dollars of damages. Damages don't scale with size of the company, it's capped at a the "reasonable" value of a human life. Like "the formula" from Fight Club, it reduces murder to simple math: if the expected profit exceeds the expected cost of fines, go ahead and kill people.

This is why some companies want tort reform, specifically limits on punitive damage. Without punitive damage caps, a court can decide that a company did kill someone for profit, and that a "reasonable" value don't deter future murders. The court can using punitive damages to make the punishment for murder actually hurt a company in the way that being convicted of murder as a person hurts the murderer. Companies complain that punitive damage awards make it unprofitable to do business. Yes. Punitive damage awards make it unprofitable to murder people. I'm okay with that.

Just another example of how the 1% get to play by different, better rules than the 99%.

Foolishly blunted into anti-abortion attacks on Planned Parenthood. Two claims that stuck out:

By their calculations, 10.1% of Planned Parenthood's customers receive abortions. Obviously they're trying to shock me by what a large percentage it is. Of course the obvious mess that leaps out is "Overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's customers, more than 89%, receive services unrelated to abortions."

To help inflate their numbers, they lump other services in as "abortion-related." Apparently to abortion opponents, "abortion-related" services include testing for STDs, receiving vaccines against HPV, and contraceptives.

(Representative article)

In related news, 49% of Americans consider themselves pro-choice, 61% think abortion should be legal only in a few circumstances or never, and about 10% of Americans have no idea what "pro-choice" means.

Louisiana Republican Rep. John Fleming illustrates the anti-abortion willingness to believe anything bad about Planned Parenthood, no matter how implausible.

So Wizards of the Coast has announced Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition. They're promising to unite fans of every previous edition at one table. Ignoring the optimism of such an attempt, Wizards of the Coast has squandered their goodwill over the last decade with stupid, selfish, short-sighted moves. I find it very hard to trust them. Maybe 5e will surprise me, but WotC has earned my skepticism.

Fourth edition was a clusterfuck on many levels.

WotC trashed the much loved Open Gaming License. The OGL was partially responsible for the success of 3e. It revitalized the dying industry. WotC concluded that the OGL was taking money away from them, so they took their ball and went home. Except it turned out that the OGL was a rising tide; it helped their competitors ships, yet, but it also helped WotC. They threw it away. I'll also never forgive them for effectively killing third party character management tools, given that their own tool is bloody awful.

4e was not playtested enough. Given the size and complexity of the game, along with the scale of the changes, the final beta tests were far too short and focused on far too few things. It showed. 5e is perhaps the most errata'd version of the game. There were deep changes, most tellingly modifying difficulty numbers by 25%. Epic level play was clearly undertested, the early claims that minions worked great at the epic level one of the most obvious errors. Skill challenges were a fascinating idea, but they clearly needed much, much more playtesting when it became apparent that what was written in the Dungeon Master's Guide had nothing to do with how they were using them in their own games.

Then WotC spat in the face of fans while simultaneously refusing their money by stopping their PDF sales of long out of print titles. Sure, the PDF sales probably didn't make much money. But, they made some money. Someone who wanted an out of print title had three options: buy a PDF, buy used, get an illegal copy. WotC only made money on one of those options. So they killed the option. I'm absolutely confident many people who would have paid WotC for PDFs said fuck it and got illegal copies. So not only did WotC refuse their money, WotC encouraged people to become comfortable engaging in copyright infringement. In the name of fighting piracy, WotC became their own worst enemy.

Fortune Cards. Collectable cards that give an advantage to the players. A slap in the face to their fan base. In organized play, he who spent money got an advantage. Even used in one of the ways WotC suggested in Gamma World, the GM maintains a shared deck, but players could buy and maintain their own deck, gives an advantage to he who spends money. The player who spends money has more control over what he draws, allowing him to tune his deck to better mesh with his character and play style. (To be clear, I have nothing against cards in play. The Fortune Cards might be an entertaining addition to a game, but only when there is a single, shared pool. Given such a usage, randomized cards are nonsense. WotC should have sold complete sets.)

Wizards of the Coast, you've spent the last decade losing my trust. It's going to take a lot more than big promises to convince me you've turned over a new leaf.

A friend foolishly asked about My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic fan fiction. Instead of sending them a list directly, I figured I'd inflict my thoughts on every one. So, here are my recommendations for ponyfic.

• The House Call - (crossover, funny) - A funny, well executed House, M.D., crossover. The Mane 6 are true to themselves.

• Canterlot Follies - (crossover, funny) - Jeeves & Wooster, if Jeeves and Wooster were ponies. Lighthearted fun. I've not read the Wodehouse books, the seems faithful to the television adaptation. The entire cast is original characters and background characters from the show. As of December 2011, still ongoing.

• Progress (Direct link to the story) - (long, funny) - Begins with "Luna Versus the Microwave." 1,000 years of isolation has left Princess Luna out of touch and needing to learn. Well written and funny. Celestia earns her Trollestia name here. Still ongoing, and very long, but the chapters stand well on their own.

• Better Living Through Science and Ponies - (crossover) - A Portal crossover. GLADOS feels right. The Mane 6 feel right. Even Chell feels right (although the story decides Chell really is mute, not just silent.) I do recommend reading "Celestia vs GlaDOS" between parts 4 and 5; it's a good addition that elegantly closes one plot hole and is entertaining on its own.

• The Best Night Ever - (funny, crossover) - Groundhog Day crossed with the episode "The Best Night Ever".

• Bubbles - (short, sad) - The saddest of all ponyfic. You probably need to have some attachment to Derpy Hooves (AKA Ditzy Doo). The alternate ending (fan fiction for fan fiction) isn't all that good, but if you need something to cheer you up it's okay.

• Shipping and Handling - (funny) Ditzy Doo accidentally ends up working for a matchmaking service. Silly fun as Ditzy engages in overly complex plans to get ponies together.

If you're looking for more stuff, I have two good places to look:

• Star-6 on Equestria Daily - Stories that, at least for a while, had at least 50 ratings and an average rating of 4.9 or better on a 5 point scale.

• One Man's Pony Ramblings - Reviews the top rated stores from Equestria Daily, if you want to filter the best of the best.

Update 2011-12-17: Added "The Best Night Ever".

Update 2012-01-20: Added "Shipping and Handling".

In a discussion about the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act this morning on Wisconsin Public Radio, a woman called in to voice her concerns. She was, she informed us, a Catholic. Since her faith says that contraception and abortion are immoral, she felt should not to be forced to pay for coverage of contraception and abortion for others.

The guest replied, clarifying that many, many restrictions were in place restricting abortion coverage. The host politely thanked the caller. This was the key mistake. The host should have told the caller that she was an ignorant, selfish dolt who is part of the problem with politics in this country.

I'm deeply morally opposed to holding prisoners in legal limbo at Guantanamo Bay. I'm deeply morally opposed to our invasion of Iraq, which has lead to at least 65,000 civilian deaths. I'm deeply morally opposed to the ongoing warrantless wiretaps of American citzen's phones and warrantless GPS tracking of American citizens' cars. I'm deeply morally opposed to the United States hopefully ended programs of torturing terrorism suspects and shipping terrorism suspects to other countries to be tortured. I'm deeply morally opposed to our handing of illegal drugs, allowed the United States to easily top lists of portion of population in prison.

Despite all of that, I'm forced to pay for all of that. I don't get to opt out. I don't get special exemptions. The idea that because some people don't want to pay for something government does that they should get an exception is utter nonsense.

If you want to argue that abortion should be illegal, well, that's your right. But if you want to argue that you shouldn't have to pay for parts of government you disagree with, you're being dumb. Stop it.

The Stop Online Piracy Act (House of Representatives) and it's partner the PROTECT IP Act (Senate) at nothing less than hamfisted censorship tools that will hurt the internet for a very small benefit. Copyright based companies want the ability to censor entire sites, sites that may be overwhelming legal with thousands of innocent users, for the illegal actions of the few. They want to do this censorship without any court review. Furthermore, they want the ability to put someone in prison for the "crime" of, say, posting a recording of themselves singing a pop song. This is bad. You can learn more at American Censorship Day. Please write to your senators and your representative to ask them to oppose these bills. How to write your representative. Contact information for your senators. If it helps, here is what I sent:

The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, and its equivalent the PROTECT IP Act in the Senate) is a deeply flawed billed, and I ask you to work to stop them or radically overhaul it.

This bill is nothing less than censorship of the internet. The government will be able to block entire websites for simply linking to allegedly infringing material. Such a link might be accidental, or have been done by a user of the site and not detected by the site owner. In the case of sites with multiple users, thousands of innocent users may be blacklisted with no warning or opportunity to object because of the actions of one. Blacklisting can be done without warning or opportunity for rebuttal or correction. Blacklist is solving a small problem with crude and dangerous tool

As an American and firm believer in the first amendment, I believe that while censorship must regrettably occasionally done, it must be done only after legal review, and must be done to as precisely as possible to avoid harming legal speech. This bill does neither.

Because of the danger created by this crude censorship tool, internet startups and existing internet companies will self-censor. They will avoid taking risks that may create great new services. In this ongoing recession, we don't need to shackle one of our most promising sectors.

Furthermore, this will be make it possible for people to be jailed for the simple "crime" of, say, sharing a video on Facebook or YouTube of themselves singing a pop song. This is massive overkill and inappropriate.

Please fight againts the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA, and its equivalent the PROTECT IP Act in the Senate).

It's been a while since I got a hard push on an extended warranty. But I shouldn't be surprised to run into one in the current economic climate. Businesses stop thinking about happy customers and the long term and just worry about the next month's quota. However, today's hard push, courtesy of OfficeMax, was especially poor.

I purchased an OfficeMax branded paper shredder. As the cashier was ringing us out, he asked if I also had oil. "Oil?" I asked. He pointed out that oil came with the extended warranty. And, after all, why was I getting a new shredder? Presumably because my old one had broken, possibly because I hadn't oiled it. I corrected his assumption; my old shredder works just fine, it's just slow and a pain in the butt to empty. Both of those things have been true since I got the old shredder.

Well, he points out, without the extended warranty, if something goes wrong within the normal warranty period I'd need to ship it back to the manufacturer, and they might refuse the warranty service as normal wear and tear, and it will cost money to ship back. Besides, do I know where they make these things? He points out the "Made in China" on the box, insinuating that it's not a very reliable device. I point out the "OfficeMax" logo on the box and ask if he's insinuating that OfficeMax, the very company whose store I am standing in, makes low quality hardware and provides low quality service. He agrees with my question, evasively claiming out that their competition does the same and thus implying that it's okay.

Why would I buy an extended warranty from a company that has basically promised to provide me with low quality products and poor service? Furthermore, why should I ever shop at a store that makes such promises. The nearest Staples is just as close to me as OfficeMax. I seem to recall my last purchase there being efficient and free of push sales. Maybe I'll try them next time.

If OfficeMax were to reply, I'm sure their reply would be that the employee violating their policies and of course they make high quality products and provide good service. This is a lie. Sure, the policies may say to not do what he did. But real humans don't spontaneously start pushing extended warranties. No, the cashier did this because he was under pressure. Being a cashier is a typical crappy service job. He almost certainly has quotas to make. If he fails to meet his quota, possibly because the product he's being ordered to push are inherently bad investments, he gets chewed out and punished. His behaviour is inevitable. If upper management claims they don't recognize this inevitable result, they are either incompetent or liars. Either way, they should be fired.

Update: Perhaps the OfficeMax cashier was telling the truth. The Limited Warranty notes:

Shredders require lubrication as directed by the User's Manual. FAILURE TO LUBRICATE THESE SYSTEMS WILL VOID THE WARRANTY.

The only information on lubricating the shredder reads:

DO NOT use flammable synthetic oils, petroleum-based or aerosol products of any kind on shredder. If lubrication is required, use approved Shredder Lubricant Sheets or vegetable-based Shredder Oils.

Notably missing: How to apply lubrication or how often. Conclusion: OfficeMax has an easy way to deny valid warranty claims.

Also:

In addition, the machine has a warning sticker on the bottom of the housing which detects if a consumer has opened the machine. IF THIS WARNING STICKER IS REMOVED, THE WARRANTY IS VOID.

I've searched the machine and cannot find a warranty voiding stick. I found the standard warning labels and a pair of quality control labels. None of these stickers have screws under them, nor do they lie on seams. The only way I'd break or remove one would be the cut or drill the machine apart, which would be pretty obvious. Conclusion: the sticker doesn't exist, providing OfficeMax yet another opportunity to deny valid warranty claims.

Overall conclusion: Never buy OfficeMax branded machinery. They're out to cheat you at an unusually high level.