The Verge reports: A federal judge has ruled against the Internet Archive in Hachette v. Internet Archive, a lawsuit brought against it by four book publishers, deciding that the website does not have the right to scan books and lend them out like a library. Judge John G. Koeltl decided that the Internet Archive had done nothing more than create "derivative works," and so would have needed authorization from the books' copyright holders — the publishers — before lending them out through its National Emergency Library program. The Internet Archive says it will appeal.
The decision was "a blow to all libraries and the communities we serve," argued Chris Freeland, the director of Open Libraries at the Internet Archive. In a blog post he argued the decision "impacts libraries across the U.S. who rely on controlled digital lending to connect their patrons with books online. It hurts authors by saying that unfair licensing models are the only way their books can be read online. And it holds back access to information in the digital age, harming all readers, everywhere.
The Verge adds that the judge rejected "fair use" arguments which had previously protected a 2014 digital book preservation project by Google Books and HathiTrust: Koetl wrote that any "alleged benefits" from the Internet Archive's library "cannot outweigh the market harm to the publishers," declaring that "there is nothing transformative about [Internet Archive's] copying and unauthorized lending," and that copying these books doesn't provide "criticism, commentary, or information about them." He notes that the Google Books use was found "transformative" because it created a searchable database instead of simply publishing copies of books on the internet.

Koetl also dismissed arguments that the Internet Archive might theoretically have helped publishers sell more copies of their books, saying there was no direct evidence, and that it was "irrelevant" that the Internet Archive had purchased its own copies of the books before making copies for its online audience. According to data obtained during the trial, the Internet Archive currently hosts around 70,000 e-book "borrows" a day.
Thanks to long-time Slashdot reader esme for sharing the news.

Domino's Pizza's franchise in Italy has entered into liquidation, after a short-lived struggle to win over customers in the birthplace of pizza. From a report: A Milan-based judge opened liquidation proceedings for Domino's franchise partner, ePizza, last week, according to a filing with the local chamber of commerce seen by Bloomberg News. A court-ordered liquidation could result in a recovery for creditors of 5% of their exposure, according to a draft restructuring plan seen by Bloomberg News that was submitted last year by the Milan-based firm and its financial advisers. The last of Domino's 29 Italian branches closed last summer, ending a foray that began in 2015 with the U.S. brand touting pizza toppings that included pineapple and barbecue chicken, an unusual take in a country more accustomed to thin-crust margheritas. Over the years, the Ann Arbor-based fast-food chain's partner borrowed heavily for ambitious plans to open 880 stores.

France's AI-powered array of surveillance cameras for the 2024 Paris Summer Olympics cleared a final legislative hurdle on Thursday. From a report: The French government wants to experiment with large-scale, real-time camera systems supported by an algorithm to spot suspicious behavior, including unsupervised luggage and triggering alarms to warn of crowd movements like stampedes, for the mega-sports event next year. In a sparsely-attended chamber, French members of parliament approved the controversial bill after more than seven hours of heated debate. The text can still be challenged before the country's top constitutional court. Last week, a group of about 40 European lawmakers -- mainly left-wing -- asked their French counterparts to vote against the text. They warned in a letter that "France would set a surveillance precedent of the kind never before seen in Europe, using the pretext of the [2024 Paris Summer] Olympic games."

In the past few months, the plan was also met with intense pushback from digital rights NGOs, including France's La Quadrature du Net, as well as international groups such as Amnesty International and Access Now. Besides privacy concerns, they pointed out a potential conflict with the EU's Artificial Intelligence Act, which is currently under discussion in Brussels and could limit biometric surveillance. The government argues that algorithmic surveillance cameras are necessary to ensure the safety of the millions of tourists expected to visit Paris next year. During the debates Wednesday evening, lawmakers from President Emmanuel Macron's party claimed AI-powered cameras could have prevented the 2016 Nice terror attack by spotting the truck before it could drive into the crowd. They also said it could have helped avoid the security fiasco at the football Champions League final last summer.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is using a new law to fine a pirate radio station operating in New York City for more than $2 million. For 15 years, Impacto 2, which has been operated by two brothers, has broadcast Ecuadorian news, culture, sports, and talk-radio on 105.5 FM in Queens. The feds have tried to shut it down repeatedly, but have never succeeded. The FCC announced the fine in a press release (PDF) last week. "The Commission proposed the maximum penalty allowable, $2,316,034, against brothers Cesar Ayora and Luis Angel Ayora for pirate radio broadcasting in Queens, New York," the release said. The FCC also said it was trying to seize $80,000 in equipment from a man broadcasting pirate radio in Eastern Oregon.

The FCC closely polices radio spectrums around the country, and provides licenses to companies who apply for specific frequencies. On the one hand, this makes sense, because use of radio frequencies are limited by physics and, without licenses, radio would be a free-for-all. Currently, the FCC is not providing any new FM or AM radio frequencies, according to its website. At the same time, pirate radio has a long history of providing access to the airwaves for independent broadcasters. In this case, the targets of the fine are a pair of brothers who were providing a vital community resource. In court documents about the fine, the FCC detailed its history with the Ayoras and Impacto 2. [...]

According to the FCC, the Ayoras have admitted to operating the radio station several times during interviews. The feds even went to the trouble of totaling every day it could prove the pair had run the radio station and detailed what it would like to charge them for it. "Based on the severity of the facts underlying these factors, we propose the maximum penalty of $115,80265 for each day of the 184 days during which the Ayoras operated their pirate radio station in 2022 for a total penalty of $21,307,568," the FCC's court documents said. That is, however, not possible under the new PIRATE Act. "We reduce the proposed penalty from $21,307,568 to $2,316,034 based on the statutory limits imposed by section 511(a) of the Act," it said in court documents.

mspohr shares an excerpt from a New York Times article: When ChatGPT exploded in popularity as a tool using artificial intelligence to draft complex texts, David Rozado decided to test its potential for bias. A data scientist in New Zealand, he subjected the chatbot to a series of quizzes, searching for signs of political orientation. The results, published in a recent paper, were remarkably consistent across more than a dozen tests: "liberal," "progressive," "Democratic." So he tinkered with his own version, training it to answer questions with a decidedly conservative bent. He called his experiment RightWingGPT. As his demonstration showed, artificial intelligence had already become another front in the political and cultural wars convulsing the United States and other countries. Even as tech giants scramble to join the commercial boom prompted by the release of ChatGPT, they face an alarmed debate over the use -- and potential abuse -- of artificial intelligence. [...]

When creating RightWingGPT, Mr. Rozado, an associate professor at the Te Pukenga-New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology, made his own influence on the model more overt. He used a process called fine-tuning, in which programmers take a model that was already trained and tweak it to create different outputs, almost like layering a personality on top of the language model. Mr. Rozado took reams of right-leaning responses to political questions and asked the model to tailor its responses to match. Fine-tuning is normally used to modify a large model so it can handle more specialized tasks, like training a general language model on the complexities of legal jargon so it can draft court filings. Since the process requires relatively little data -- Mr. Rozado used only about 5,000 data points to turn an existing language model into RightWingGPT -- independent programmers can use the technique as a fast-track method for creating chatbots aligned with their political objectives. This also allowed Mr. Rozado to bypass the steep investment of creating a chatbot from scratch. Instead, it cost him only about $300.

Mr. Rozado warned that customized A.I. chatbots could create "information bubbles on steroids" because people might come to trust them as the "ultimate sources of truth" -- especially when they were reinforcing someone's political point of view. His model echoed political and social conservative talking points with considerable candor. It will, for instance, speak glowingly about free market capitalism or downplay the consequences from climate change. It also, at times, provided incorrect or misleading statements. When prodded for its opinions on sensitive topics or right-wing conspiracy theories, it shared misinformation aligned with right-wing thinking. When asked about race, gender or other sensitive topics, ChatGPT tends to tread carefully, but it will acknowledge that systemic racism and bias are an intractable part of modern life. RightWingGPT appeared much less willing to do so. "Mr. Rozado never released RightWingGPT publicly, although he allowed The New York Times to test it," adds the report. "He said the experiment was focused on raising alarm bells about potential bias in A.I. systems and demonstrating how political groups and companies could easily shape A.I. to benefit their own agendas."

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission sued Justin Sun Wednesday on allegations of selling and airdropping unregistered securities, fraud and market manipulation. From a report: The SEC said in a press release it was suing Sun, the Tron Foundation, the BitTorrent Foundation and BitTorrent (now known as Rainberry) over the sale of tronix (TRX) and BitTorrent (BTT) tokens, which it described as unregistered crypto asset securities. The regulator further alleged that the defendants "fraudulently manipulat[ed]" TRX's secondary market through an "extensive wash trading" scheme. The agency is also suing Lindsay Lohan, Jake Paul, Soulja Boy, Lil Yachty, Ne-Yo, Akon and Michele Mason on illegal touting charges for their roles allegedly promoting TRX and BTT without disclosing they were paid to do so. The majority of these celebrities settled the charges.

Sun, who was named Grenada's ambassador to the World Trade Organization (WTO) last year, tried to artificially inflate TRX's trading volume through the wash trading scheme, the SEC alleged, by having his own employees "engage in more than 600,000 wash trades of TRX between two crypto asset trading platform accounts he controlled." Somewhere between 4.5 million and 7.4 million TRX was traded daily through these wash trades, the agency said.

The Supreme Court will take a break on Wednesday from the unusually political mix of cases it decided to hear during its current term, to consider a case about poop jokes. From a report: Jack Daniel's v. VIP Products asks whether VIP Products, the nation's second-largest maker of dog toys, infringed upon the whiskey maker's trademarked bottle shape and label when it sold dog toys that resemble a bottle of Jack Daniel's. The dog toy, named "Bad Spaniels," juxtaposes imagery drawn from the whiskey maker's trademarks with a gag about a dog dropping âoethe old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet." Jack Daniel's seeks a court order prohibiting VIP from continuing to sell this toy.

Jack Daniel's is, on the surface, a very silly case, which prompted some very silly attempts by the whiskey maker's lawyers to explain why their client is so offended by this dog toy. Sample quote from their brief: "Jack Daniel's loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone. But Jack Daniel's likes its customers even more, and doesn't want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop." Lurking below the surface, however, are very serious questions about the First Amendment. And about how far courts should go in second-guessing Congress's decisions about how to balance the needs of the marketplace with the demands of free speech. VIP has strong legal arguments that it should prevail in this case, but Jack Daniel's also raises strong claims that the lower courts did too much to undermine federal trademark law.

Google defended its use of "history-off chats" for many internal communications, denying the US government's allegation that it intentionally destroyed evidence needed in an antitrust case. The history-off setting causes messages to be automatically deleted within 24 hours. Ars Technica reports: The US government and 21 states last month asked a court to sanction Google for allegedly using the auto-delete function on chats to destroy evidence and accused Google of falsely telling the government that it suspended its auto-deletion practices on chats subject to a legal hold. Google opposed the motion for sanctions on Friday in a filing (PDF) in US District Court for the District of Columbia. Google said it uses a "tiered approach" for preserving chats. "When there is litigation, Google instructs employees on legal hold not to use messaging apps like Google Chat to discuss the subjects at issue in the litigation and, if they must, to switch their settings to 'history on' for chats regarding the subjects at issue in the litigation, so that any such messages are preserved," the Google filing said.

Google said the government plaintiffs "contend that the Federal Rules specifically mandate that Google should have applied a forced history on setting for all custodians for all chats created while the custodian was on legal hold, regardless of the possible relevance of the message to the litigation." But federal rules only require "reasonable steps to preserve" information, Google pointed out. "Google's vast preservation efforts here -- and specifically its methodology with respect to history-off chats -- were 'reasonable steps' under the Rule," Google argued. Google said the US and state attorneys general "have not been denied access to material information needed to prosecute these cases and they have offered no evidence that Google intentionally destroyed such evidence." Google also argued that the objections came too late, alleging that the government knew before litigation began "that there was a subset of chats not automatically retained." "Plaintiffs' motions are barred at the outset because they were on notice of Google's approach to chats for years, yet did not object until well after the close of discovery. Those tactics should not be countenanced," Google told the court.

Google said its November 2019 disclosures in an ESI (Electronically Stored Information) questionnaire "show that the distinction between 'on-the-record' and other chats was apparent to anyone who wanted to pursue the matter from the outset of DOJ's investigation. For instance, the ESI Questionnaire response specifies that chat 'messages are generally retained for a period of 30 days if they have been marked on-the-record, and potentially longer if on-the-record messages are on legal hold.'" Google also said, "it is no secret how Google's Chat product operates" because it's a publicly available product and the Google Chat website explains the history-off feature. The Justice Department's motion last month said things happened very differently. "Google systematically destroyed an entire category of written communications every 24 hours" for nearly four years, the government motion said, continuing [...].

Microsoft has won dismissal of a private consumer antitrust lawsuit over its $69 billion proposed purchase of "Call of Duty" maker Activision Blizzard, but the plaintiffs were given 20 days to refine their legal challenge. From a report: A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that the lawsuit from a group of video game plaintiffs "lacks allegations" supporting their claim that the proposed acquisition would harm market competition. "Plaintiffs' general allegation that the merger may cause 'higher prices, less innovation, less creativity, less consumer choice, decreased output, and other potential anticompetitive effects' is insufficient," wrote U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Corley. "Why? How?" The decision does not affect the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) regulatory challenge to the largest-ever gaming industry deal.

A federal judge on Monday will weigh pleas by four major book publishers to stop an online lending library from freely offering digital copies of books, in a case that raises novel questions about digital-library rights and the reach of copyright law that protects the work of writers and publishers. From a report: Nonprofit organization Internet Archive created the digital books, building its collection by scanning physical book copies in its possession. It lends the digital versions to readers worldwide, with more than three million digitized books on offer. Titles range from Stephen King's scary bestseller "It" to Kristin Hannah's historical novel "The Nightingale." The archive expanded its digital lending during the Covid-19 pandemic, temporarily lifting limits on how many people could check out a book at one time. The move helped prompt the publishers' copyright infringement lawsuit in 2020, which is pending before U.S. District Judge John Koeltl in Manhattan.

The plaintiffs are Lagardere SCA's Hachette Book Group, John Wiley and Sons, Bertelsmann SE's Penguin Random House, and HarperCollins Publishers, which like The Wall Street Journal is owned by News Corp. They argue the Internet Archive book platform "constitutes willful digital piracy on an industrial scale" and hurts writers and publishers who rely on consumers buying their products. William Adams, general counsel for HarperCollins Publishers, said the archive's approach has no basis in law. "What they're doing is supplanting what authors and publishers do with libraries and have been doing for a long time," he said. The Internet Archive says its lending practices are a fair and legal use of the books, in the same way that traditional bricks-and-mortar libraries have a right to share their collections with the public.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Federal agents have arrested a Peekskill, New York, man they say ran the notorious dark web data-breach site "BreachForums" under the name "Pompompurin." Conor Brian Fitzpatrick was arrested by a team of investigators at his home around 4:30 p.m. Wednesday, an FBI agent said in a sworn statement filed in court the next day. Fitzpatrick is charged with a single count of conspiracy to commit access device fraud.

BreachForums hosted the stolen databases of almost 1,000 companies and websites. The databases often includes personal information, such as names, emails and passwords. The information is offered for sale by users of the site and can be used for fraud. Pompompurin's profile on BreachForums describes him as "Bossman" and pictures the Sanrio Co. cartoon dog whose name he used as an online alias. The profile shows Fitzpatrick's most recent visit to the site was Wednesday at 3:53 p.m., shortly before his arrest. The FBI agent, who led the other agents in the arrest, said Fitzpatrick admitted he had used the alias "Pompompurin" and was the owner and operator of BreachForums.

In November 2021, Pompompurin claimed responsibility for sending out fake emails that originated from an "fbi.gov" email address. Pompompurin claimed responsibility for the breach in an interview with Brian Krebs. Details of the charges, filed in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, have not been made public. A spokeswoman for the US Attorney in Alexandria didn't return phone and email messages seeking comment. Fitzpatrick was presented in federal court in White Plains, New York, and released on a $300,000 unsecured bond, signed by his parents. Fitzpatrick is required to avoid any contact with co-defendant, co-conspirators and witnesses in the case. He's due to appear in court in Alexandria on March 24.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Register: A cancer patient whose nude medical photos and records were posted online after they were stolen by a ransomware gang, has sued her healthcare provider for allowing the "preventable" and "seriously damaging" leak. The proposed class-action lawsuit stems from a February intrusion during which malware crew BlackCat (also known as ALPHV) broke into one of the Lehigh Valley Health Network (LVHN) physician's networks, stole images of patients undergoing radiation oncology treatment along with other sensitive health records belonging to more than 75,000 people, and then demanded a ransom payment to decrypt the files and prevent it from posting the health data online. The Pennsylvania health care group, one of the largest in the US state, oversees 13 hospitals, 28 health centers, and dozens of other physicians' clinics, pharmacies, rehab centers, imaging and lab services. LVHN refused to pay the ransom, and earlier this month BlackCat started leaking patient info, including images of at least two breast cancer patients, naked from the waist up.

According to the lawsuit [PDF] filed this week, here's how one of the patients, identified as "Jane Doe" found out about the data breach -- and that LVHN had stored nude images of her on its network in the first place. On March 6, LVHN VP of Compliance Mary Ann LaRock, called Doe and told her that her nude photos had been posted on the hackers' leak site. "Ms. LaRock offered plaintiff an apology, and with a chuckle, two years of credit monitoring," the court documents say. In addition to swiping the very sensitive photos, the crooks also made off with everything needed for identity fraud.

According to the lawsuit, LaRock also told Doe that her physical and email addresses, along with date of birth, social security number, health insurance provider, medical diagnosis and treatment information, and lab results were also likely stolen in the breach. "Given that LVHN is and was storing the sensitive information of plaintiff and the class, including nude photographs of plaintiff receiving sensitive cancer treatment, LVHN knew or should have known of the serious risk and harm that could occur from a data breach," the lawsuit says. It claims LVHN was negligent in its duty to safeguard patients' sensitive information, and seeks class action status for everyone whose data was exposed with monetary damages to be determined. Pennsylvania attorney Patrick Howard, who is representing Doe and the rest of the plaintiffs in the proposed class action, said he expects the number of patients affected by the breach to be in the "hundreds, if not thousands."

SVB Financial Group, the former parent company of Silicon Valley Bank, the lender that was seized by regulators last week after a devastating run on deposits, filed for bankruptcy on Friday. From a report: The move would place SVB Financial, which owns other businesses aside from Silicon Valley Bank, into a court-led process, as it auctions off units that include the investment manager SVB Capital and the brokerage firm SVB securities. Those units continue to operate and were not part of the bankruptcy filing. The bankruptcy process would be separate from the sale of assets led by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to repay Silicon Valley Bank's depositors. SVB Financial said in a statement that it "believes it has approximately $2.2 billion of liquidity." The company had about $3.3 billion in debt outstanding and a type of shares worth $3.7 billion.

The US Copyright Office has issued (PDF) guidance today to clarify when AI-generated material can be copyrighted. Ars Technica reports: Guidance comes after the Copyright Office decided that an author could not copyright individual AI images used to illustrate a comic book, because each image was generated by Midjourney -- not a human artist. In making its decision, the Copyright Office committed to upholding the longstanding legal definition that authors of creative works must be human to register works. Because of this, officials confirmed that AI technologies can never be considered authors. This wasn't the only case influencing new guidance, but it was the most recent. Wrestling with the comic book's complex authorship questions helped prompt the Copyright Office to launch an agency-wide initiative to continue exploring a wider range of copyright issues arising as the AI models that are used to generate text, art, audio, and video continue evolving.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the guidance is an author's "duty to disclose the inclusion of AI-generated content in a work submitted for registration." When registering works, authors must distinguish which content is human-authored and which content is AI-generated. If applicants aren't sure how to refer to the AI-generated content, the Copyright Office recommends providing a general statement that the work contains AI-generated content. That will prompt the office to follow up to help each author fill in the blanks in an application.

For artists who have pending applications or have already registered works that contain AI-generated content, the Copyright Office suggests correcting the public record by submitting a supplementary registration. Any failure to accurately reflect the role of AI in copyrighted works could result in "losing the benefits of the registration," the office warned. That could leave works vulnerable to being copied, with little or no legal recourse for copyright infringement claims. Failure to disclose AI-generated content is the only type of infringement discussed in the guidance. Critics like Alex J. Champandard, a co-founder of Creative.ai -- a group of hackers and artists interested in generative AI -- tweeted to say that current guidance puts authors in a precarious catch-22 situation. "By disclosing the AI, you're opening yourself up to infringement, but by not disclosing AI, it's safer but in violation of [the US Copyright Office]!" Champandard's tweet suggested.

Amazon did not alert its New York City customers that they were being monitored by facial recognition technology, a lawsuit filed Thursday alleges. CNBC reports: In a class-action suit, lawyers for Alfredo Perez said that the company failed to tell visitors to Amazon Go convenience stores that the technology was in use. Thanks to a 2021 law, New York is the only major American city to require businesses to post signs if they're tracking customers' biometric information, such as facial scans or fingerprints. [...] The lawsuit says that Amazon only recently put up signs informing New York customers of its use of facial recognition technology, more than a year after the disclosure law went into effect. "To make this 'Just Walk Out' technology possible, the Amazon Go stores constantly collect and use customers' biometric identifier information, including by scanning the palms of some customers to identify them and by applying computer vision, deep learning algorithms, and sensor fusion that measure the shape and size of each customer's body to identify customers, track where they move in the stores, and determine what they have purchased," says the lawsuit.

"It means that even a global tech giant can't ignore local privacy laws," Albert Cahn, project director, said in a text message. "As we wait for long overdue federal privacy laws, it shows there is so much local governments can do to protect their residents."

Liquidators at FTX said that founder Sam Bankman-Fried had received $2.2 billion in "loans and payments" while he was allegedly running a massive fraud at the crypto exchange. From a report: According to FTX's bankruptcy court filing, Bankman-Fried got more than $2 billion in loans -- primarily through Alameda Research, the hedge fund he founded that lost big on bad investments, then misused customer deposits from FTX accounts in an attempt to cover those losses. Bankman-Fried wasn't the only executive-roommate to be paid via Alameda: Former director of engineering Nishad Singh got $587 million, co-founder Gary Wang got $246 million, former co-CEO Ryan Salame got $87 million, and former Alameda co-CEO John Samuel Trabucco got $25 million. Caroline Ellison, Bankman-Fried's ex-girlfriend and ex-CEO at Alameda, was more frugal, receiving just $6 million in loans and payments. New management at FTX was careful to note that the $3.2 billion that FTX's and Alameda's top earners essentially lent themselves does not include the $240 million they spent on luxury property in the Bahamas or the political donations given directly by FTX.

Amazon's efforts to minimize its taxes in the European Union were given a code-name evocative of a spy thriller with British agent 007, according to an EU lawyer, who claimed the arrangements broke the bloc's state-aid rules. From a report: "Project Goldcrest -- it sounds like the title of a James Bond movie, but it is not," it's the name "Amazon gave to a complex tax construction by which it fundamentally reorganized its global business," European Commission attorney Paul-John Loewenthal told a hearing at the EU's top court on Thursday.

"In 2006, that project had one purpose to ensure that Amazon would avoid paying tax on its European profits." Under that plan, "Luxembourg provided a measure to Amazon by which Amazon could exempt the vast majority of its European profit from taxation in return for investments in Luxembourg, thus affecting intra EU trade and distorting competition," he said. "That is the very definition of fiscal state aid." The EU's executive arm is appealing a painful defeat inflicted by a lower court, which overturned a decision to force the ecommerce firm to pay back $265 million of tax breaks regulators deemed to be an unfair subsidy.

A Dutch court hearing a class action lawsuit on Wednesday found that a European subsidiary of Meta, Facebook Ireland, improperly used personal data of Dutch citizens between 2010 and 2020, saying the company had "violated the law." From a report: "Personal information was processed for the purposes of advertising when in this case that is not allowed," a summary of the Amsterdam court ruling said. "Personal information was given to third parties without Facebook users being informed and without there being a legal basis to do so." The decision was directed at Facebook Ireland because it is the part of the company that oversees the processing of Dutch user data. The case has not yet progressed to the phase where any damages could be claimed.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: The High Court of Justice has issued a permanent injunction to stop a man filing copyright complaints against a rival's YouTube channels. As part of a fraudulent campaign against "the music mafia," the singer used copyright strikes and YouTube's repeat infringer policy to have a music publisher's channels suspended. The background to the dispute is nothing short of extraordinary. [...] The background to the dispute is an extraordinary maze of claims, counterclaims, and bitterness spread out over several years, during which documents were forensically examined and fingerprints subjected to professional scrutiny.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Microsoft announced Tuesday that it has signed a 10-year deal to bring its Xbox PC games to little-known Ukraine-based streaming platform Boosteroid. The move is being positioned in part to "mak[e] even more clear to regulators that our acquisition of Activision Blizzard will make Call of Duty available on far more devices than before," as Microsoft Vice Chair and President Brad Smith said in a statement. "If the only argument is that Microsoft is going to withhold Call of Duty from other platforms, and we've now entered into contracts that are going to bring this to many more devices and many more platforms, that is a pretty hard case to make to a court," Smith told The Wall Street Journal.

Started in 2017, Boosteroid boasts 4 million streaming customers using servers based in nine European countries and six US states. Those customers pay 7.50 euro per month to stream games from those servers to any smartphone, Windows/Mac/Linux-based PC, or Android TV device. Boosteroid currently links to users' accounts on other PC-based platforms -- including Steam, the Epic Games Store, Blizzard's Battle.net, EA's Origin, the Rockstar Game Launcher, and Wargaming -- and lets them play games from those services without having to install them on a local gaming PC. With this new deal, that access will expand to include games available through Microsoft's Xbox app on the PC.