A group of record labels including the big three -- Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music Entertainment, and Warner Records -- are suing two of the top names in generative AI music making, alleging the companies violated their copyright "en masse." From a report: The two AI companies, Suno and Udio, use text prompts to churn out original songs. Both companies have enjoyed a level of success: Suno is available for use in Microsoft Copilot though a partnership with the tech giant. Udio was used to create "BBL Drizzy," one of the more notable examples of AI music going viral.

The case against Suno was filed in Boston federal court, and the Udio case was filed in New York. The labels say artists across genres and eras had their work used without consent. The lawsuits were brought by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the powerful group representing major players in the music industry, and a group of labels. The RIAA is seeking damages of up to $150,000 per work, along with other fees.

TikTok revealed it offered the U.S. government a "kill switch" in 2022 to address data protection and national security concerns, allowing the government to shut down the platform if it violated certain rules. The disclosure was made as it began its legal fight against legislation that will require ByteDance to divest TikTok's U.S. assets or face a ban. The BBC reports: "This law is a radical departure from this country's tradition of championing an open Internet, and sets a dangerous precedent allowing the political branches to target a disfavored speech platform and force it to sell or be shut down," they argued in their legal submission. They also claimed the US government refused to engage in any serious settlement talks after 2022, and pointed to the "kill switch" offer as evidence of the lengths they had been prepared to go.

TikTok says the mechanism would have allowed the government the "explicit authority to suspend the platform in the United States at the US government's sole discretion" if it did not follow certain rules. A draft "National Security Agreement", proposed by TikTok in August 2022, would have seen the company having to follow rules such as properly funding its data protection units and making sure that ByteDance did not have access to US users' data. The "kill switch" could have been triggered by the government if it broke this agreement, it claimed.

In a letter - first reported by the Washington Post - addressed to the US Department of Justice, TikTok's lawyer alleges that the government "ceased any substantive negotiations" after the proposal of the new rules. The letter, dated 1 April 2024, says the US government ignored requests to meet for further negotiations. It also alleges the government did not respond to TikTok's invitation to "visit and inspect its Dedicated Transparency Center in Maryland." Further reading: TikTok Says US Ban Inevitable Without a Court Order Blocking Law

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) yesterday rejected AT&T's request to end its landline phone obligations. The state agency also urged AT&T to upgrade copper facilities to fiber instead of trying to shut down the outdated portions of its network. AT&T asked the state to eliminate its Carrier of Last Resort (COLR) obligation, which requires it to provide landline telephone service to any potential customer in its service territory. A CPUC administrative law judge recommended rejection of the application last month, and the commission voted to dismiss AT&T's application with prejudice on Thursday.

"Our vote to dismiss AT&T's application made clear that we will protect customer access to basic telephone service... Our rules were designed to provide that assurance, and AT&T's application did not follow our rules," Commissioner John Reynolds said in a CPUC announcement. State rules require a replacement COLR in order to relieve AT&T of its duties, and AT&T argued that VoIP and mobile services could fill that gap. But residents "highlighted the unreliability of voice alternatives" at public hearings, the CPUC said. "Despite AT&T's contention that providers of voice alternatives to landline service -- such as VoIP or mobile wireless services -- can fill the gap, the CPUC found AT&T did not meet the requirements for COLR withdrawal," the agency said. "Specifically, AT&T failed to demonstrate the availability of replacement providers willing and able to serve as COLR, nor did AT&T prove that alternative providers met the COLR definition."

The administrative law judge's proposed decision said AT&T falsely claimed that commission rules require it "to retain outdated copper-based landline facilities that are expensive to maintain." The agency stressed that its rules do not prevent AT&T from upgrading to fiber. "COLR rules are technology-neutral and do not distinguish between voice services offered... and do not prevent AT&T from retiring copper facilities or from investing in fiber or other facilities/technologies to improve its network," the agency said yesterday. AT&T California President Marc Blakeman said the company is lobbying to change the state law. "No customer will be left without voice and 911 services. We are focused on the legislation introduced in California, which includes important protections, safeguards, and outreach for consumers and does not impact our customers in rural locations. We are fully committed to keeping our customers connected while we work with state leaders on policies that create a thoughtful transition that brings modern communications to all Californians," Blakeman said.

According to SFGATE, the legislation pushed by AT&T "would create a way for AT&T to remain as COLR in rural regions, which the company estimates as being about 100,000 customers, while being released from COLR obligations everywhere else."

Thomas Claburn reports via The Register: Once again, IBM has been sued for age discrimination, this time alongside spin-off Kyndryl, for allegedly cutting the jobs of older workers while creating similar positions for younger ones. The complaint [PDF] was filed on Tuesday in New York City, on behalf of five veteran executives and employees who collectively served the two corporations for more than 150 years. The IBM plaintiffs include: Michael Nolan, former Director of Strategy and Planning for IBM's Software Unit; Karla Bousquet, former VP, CEO of Events at IBM, Karla; Jay Zeltzer, former Business Automation Leader; and Teresa Cook, former VP of Client Experience. Randall Blanchard, former Services Account manager, is suing Kyndryl, having previously been with Big Blue.

Despite IBM chief global HR officer Nickel LaMoreaux's 2022 rejection of what she characterized as "false claims of systemic age discrimination," the lawsuit argues the mainframe titan is still targeting older workers. The legal filing cites a 2021 case, Townsley v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp, in which executive Sam Ladah, who is accused of attempting "to keep ageist IBM executive level planning documents confidential," said those documents from five to six years earlier were still being used for hiring decisions. To further support the claim that the targeting of older workers continues to this day, the complaint says, "A recently leaked video of [CEO Arvind] Krishna confirms that IBM has continued its practice of using secretive top-down pressure to gerrymander its workforce to reflect the demographic preferences of its executives."

The 2023 video, published by conservative political activist James O'Keefe, appears to show Krishna tying manager bonuses to diversity targets in a context where such targets are alleged to be discriminatory. Basically, IBM has been accused of threatening to withhold bonuses from bosses if they don't hire a diverse enough range of techies -- more Hispanic and Black people -- leading to qualified candidates -- Asian people and others -- being ignored on the basis of their race. The latest lawsuit also points to Wimbish v. IBM, an age discrimination complaint filed in September by two human resources managers. "In their complaint, these fired HR managers alleged that IBM's HR still constantly consider an employee's 'runway' when determining if that worker would be terminated," the complaint says. "'Runway' is coded language for how long IBM HR expects an employee to remain at IBM before they retire, a direct proxy for age."

The Internet Archive's Open Library, which operates similarly to traditional libraries by lending out digital copies of purchased or donated physical books, has been forced to remove 500,000 books due to a lawsuit by big publishers. Mike Masnick reports via Techdirt: As we've discussed at great length, the Internet Archive's Open Library system is indistinguishable from the economics of how a regular library works. The Archive either purchases physical books or has them donated (just like a physical library). It then lends them out on a one-to-one basis (leaving aside a brief moment where it took down that barrier when basically all libraries were shut down due to pandemic lockdowns), such that when someone "borrows" a digital copy of a book, no one else can borrow that same copy. And yet, for all of the benefits of such a system in enabling more people to be able to access information, without changing the basic economics of how libraries have always worked, the big publishers all sued the Internet Archive. The publishers won the first round of that lawsuit. And while the court (somewhat surprisingly!) did not order the immediate closure of the Open Library, it did require the Internet Archive to remove any books upon request from publishers (though only if the publishers made those books available as eBooks elsewhere).

As the case has moved into the appeals stage (where we have filed an amicus brief), the Archive has revealed that around 500,000 books have been removed from the open library. The Archive has put together an open letter to publishers, requesting that they restore access to this knowledge and information -- a request that will almost certainly fall on extremely deaf ears: "We purchase and acquire books -- yes, physical, paper books -- and make them available for one person at a time to check out and read online. This work is important for readers and authors alike, as many younger and low-income readers can only read if books are free to borrow, and many authors' books will only be discovered or preserved through the work of librarians. We use industry-standard technology to prevent our books from being downloaded and redistributed -- the same technology used by corporate publishers. But the publishers suing our library say we shouldn't be allowed to lend the books we own. They have forced us to remove more than half a million books from our library, and that's why we are appealing."

TikTok and Chinese parent ByteDance on Thursday urged a U.S. court to strike down a law they say will ban the popular short app in the United States on Jan. 19, saying the U.S. government refused to engage in any serious settlement talks after 2022. From a report: Legislation signed in April by President Joe Biden gives ByteDance until Jan. 19 of next year to divest TikTok's U.S. assets or face a ban on the app used by 170 million Americans. ByteDance says a divestiture is "not possible technologically, commercially, or legally."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will hold oral arguments on lawsuits filed by TikTok and ByteDance along with TikTok users on Sept. 16. TikTok's future in the United States may rest on the outcome of the case which could impact how the U.S. government uses its new authority to clamp down on foreign-owned apps. "This law is a radical departure from this country's tradition of championing an open Internet, and sets a dangerous precedent allowing the political branches to target a disfavored speech platform and force it to sell or be shut down," ByteDance and TikTok argue in asking the court to strike down the law.

Facebook and Instagram users are increasingly turning to small claims courts to regain access to their accounts or seek damages from Meta, amid frustrations with the company's customer support. In several cases across multiple states, Engadget reports, plaintiffs have successfully restored account access or won financial compensation. Meta often responds by contacting litigants before court dates, attempting to resolve issues out of court.

The trend, popularized on social media forums, highlights ongoing customer service issues at the tech giant. Some users report significant financial losses due to inaccessible business-related accounts. While small claims court offers a more accessible legal avenue, Meta typically deploys legal resources to respond to these claims.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Kilifi County's white sandy beaches have made it one of Kenya's most popular tourist destinations. Hotels and beach bars line the 165 mile-long (265km) coast; fishers supply the district's restaurants with fresh seafood; and visitors spend their days boating, snorkelling around coral reefs or bird watching in dense mangrove forests. Soon, this idyllic coastline will host Kenya's first nuclear plant, as the country, like its east African neighbour Uganda, pushes forward with atomic energy plans. The proposals have sparked fierce opposition in Kilifi. In a building by Mida Creek, a swampy bayou known for its birdlife and mangrove forests, more than a dozen conservation and rights groups meet regularly to discuss the proposed plant.

"Kana nuclear!" Phyllis Omido, an award-winning environmentalist who is leading the protests, tells one such meeting. The Swahili slogan means "reject nuclear", and encompasses the acronym for the Kenya Anti-Nuclear Alliance who say the plant will deepen Kenya's debt and are calling for broader public awareness of the cost. Construction on the power station is expected to start in 2027, with it due to be operational in 2034. "It is the worst economic decision we could make for our country," says Omido, who began her campaign last year. A lawsuit filed in the environmental court by lawyers Collins Sang and Cecilia Ndeti in July 2023 on behalf of Kilifi residents, seeks to stop the plant, arguing that the process has been "rushed" and was "illegal", and that public participation meetings were "clandestine". They argue the Nuclear Power and Energy Agency (Nupea) should not proceed with fixing any site for the plant before laws and adequate safeguards are in place. Nupea said construction would not begin for years, that laws were under discussion and that adequate public participation was being carried out. Hearings are continuing to take place.

In November, people in Kilifi filed a petition with parliament calling for an inquiry. The petition, sponsored by the Centre for Justice Governance and Environmental Action (CJGEA), a non-profit founded by Omido in 2009, also claimed that locals had limited information on the proposed plant and the criteria for selecting preferred sites. It raised concerns over the risks to health, the environment and tourism in the event of a nuclear spill, saying the country was undertaking a "high-risk venture" without proper legal and disaster response measures in place. The petition also flagged concerns over security and the handling of radioactive waste in a nation prone to floods and drought. The senate suspended (PDF) the inquiry until the lawsuit was heard. "If we really have to invest in nuclear, why can't [the government] put it in a place that does not cause so much risk to our ecological assets?" says Omido. "Why don't they choose an area that would not mean that if there was a nuclear leak we would lose so much as a country?" Peter Musila, a marine scientist who monitors the impacts of global heating on coral reefs, fears that a nuclear power station will threaten aquatic life. The coral cover in Watamu marine national reserve, a protected area near Kilifi's coast, has improved over the last decade and Musila fears progress could be reversed by thermal pollution from the plant, whose cooling system would suck large amounts of water from the ocean and return it a few degrees warmer, potentially killing fish and the micro-organisms such as plankton, which are essential for a thriving aquatic ecosystem. "It's terrifying," says Musila, who works with the conservation organisation A Rocha Kenya. "It could wreak havoc." Nupea, for its part, "published an impact assessment report last year that recommended policies be put in place to ensure environmental protections, including detailed plans for the handling of radioactive waste; measures to mitigate environmental harm, such as setting up a nuclear unit in the national environment management authority; and emergency response teams," notes the Guardian. "It also proposed social and economic protections for affected communities, including clear guidelines on compensation for those who lose their livelihoods, or are displaced from their land, when the plant is set up."

"Nupea said a power station could create thousands of jobs for Kenyans and said it had partnered with Kilifi universities to start nuclear training programs that would enable more residents to take up jobs at the plant. Wilfred Baya, assistant director for energy for Kilifi county, says the plant could also bring infrastructural development and greater electricity access to a region which suffers frequent power cuts."

An anonymous reader quotes a report from TorrentFreak: A French court has ordered Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to poison their DNS resolvers to prevent circumvention of blocking measures, targeting around 117 pirate sports streaming domains. The move is another anti-piracy escalation for broadcaster Canal+, which also has permission to completely deindex the sites from search engine results. [...] Two decisions were handed down by the Paris judicial court last month; one concerning Premier League matches and the other the Champions League. The orders instruct Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco to implement measures similar to those in place at local ISPs. To protect the rights of Canal+, the companies must prevent French internet users from using their services to access around 117 pirate domains.

According to French publication l'Informe, which broke the news, Google attorney Sebastien Proust crunched figures published by government anti-piracy agency Arcom and concluded that the effect on piracy rates, if any, is likely to be minimal. Starting with a pool of all users who use alternative DNS for any reason, users of pirate sites -- especially sites broadcasting the matches in question -- were isolated from the rest. Users of both VPNs and third-party DNS were further excluded from the group since DNS blocking is ineffective against VPNs. Proust found that the number of users likely to be affected by DNS blocking at Google, Cloudflare, and Cisco, amounts to 0.084% of the total population of French Internet users. Citing a recent survey, which found that only 2% of those who face blocks simply give up and don't find other means of circumvention, he reached an interesting conclusion. "2% of 0.084% is 0.00168% of Internet users! In absolute terms, that would represent a small group of around 800 people across France!"

In common with other courts presented with the same arguments, the Paris court said the number of people using alternative DNS to access the sites, and the simplicity of switching DNS, are irrelevant. Canal+ owns the rights to the broadcasts and if it wishes to request a blocking injunction, it has the legal right to do so. The DNS providers' assertion that their services are not covered by the legislation was also waved aside by the court. Google says it intends to comply with the order. As part of the original matter in 2023, it was already required to deindex the domains from search results under the same law. At least in theory, this means that those who circumvented the original blocks using these alternative DNS services, will be back to square one and confronted by blocks all over again. Given that circumventing this set of blocks will be as straightforward as circumventing the originals, that raises the question of what measures Canal+ will demand next, and from whom.

The U.S. government on Monday sued Adobe, accusing the maker of Photoshop and Acrobat of harming consumers by enrolling them in its most lucrative subscription plans without clearly disclosing important terms. From a report: In a complaint filed in the San Jose, California, federal court, the government said Adobe failed to adequately disclose hefty early termination fees, sometimes reaching hundreds of dollars, when customers sign up for "annual, paid monthly" subscription plans.

The government said Adobe hides important terms in fine print and behind textboxes and hyperlinks, clearly discloses the fees only when subscribers try to cancel, and makes canceling an onerous and complicated process.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Reuters: Alphabet's Google must face trial on U.S. antitrust enforcers' claim that the internet search juggernaut illegally dominates the online advertising technology market, a federal judge ruled on Friday. U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia, denied Google's motion during a hearing, according to court records. Google had argued for a win without a trial, saying that antitrust laws do not block companies from refusing to deal with rivals and that regulators had not accurately defined the ad tech market. Court papers did not specify what reasons the judge provided at the hearing. Motions like the one Google filed are only granted where a judge determines there is no factual dispute to send to trial. Last year, the U.S. Justice department and eight states sued Google, calling for the break up of the search giant's ad-technology business over alleged illegal monopolization of the digital advertising market.

Visa's and Mastercard's proposed $30 billion antitrust settlement to limit credit and debit card fees for merchants is in peril, after a New York judge signaled she was preparing to reject the accord. From a report: U.S. District Judge Margo Brodie in Brooklyn told lawyers for the card networks and objectors at a hearing on Thursday that she will "likely not approve the settlement," according to court records.

She plans to write an opinion explaining her decision and reasoning. Both card networks said they were disappointed. Mastercard called the settlement a "fair resolution" that gave businesses more flexibility in managing card transactions, and Visa called it an "appropriate resolution" to the nearly 19-year-old case.

A facial recognition start-up, accused of invasion of privacy in a class-action lawsuit, has agreed to a settlement, with a twist: Rather than cash payments, it would give a 23 percent stake in the company to Americans whose faces are in its database. From a report: Clearview AI, which is based in New York, scraped billions of photos from the web and social media sites like Facebook, LinkedIn and Instagram to build a facial recognition app used by thousands of police departments, the Department of Homeland Security and the F.B.I. After The New York Times revealed the company's existence in 2020, lawsuits were filed across the country. They were consolidated in federal court in Chicago as a class action.

The litigation has proved costly for Clearview AI, which would most likely go bankrupt before the case made it to trial, according to court documents. The company and those who sued it were "trapped together on a sinking ship," lawyers for the plaintiffs wrote in a court filing proposing the settlement. "These realities led the sides to seek a creative solution by obtaining for the class a percentage of the value Clearview could achieve in the future," added the lawyers, from Loevy + Loevy in Chicago.

Anyone in the United States who has a photo of himself or herself posted publicly online -- so almost everybody -- could be considered a member of the class. The settlement would collectively give the members a 23 percent stake in Clearview AI, which is valued at $225 million, according to court filings. (Twenty-three percent of the company's current value would be about $52 million.) If the company goes public or is acquired, those who had submitted a claim form would get a cut of the proceeds. Alternatively, the class could sell its stake. Or the class could opt, after two years, to collect 17 percent of Clearview's revenue, which it would be required to set aside.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Singapore's CNA news channel: Kandula Nagaraju, 39, was sentenced to two years and eight months' jail on Monday (Jun 10) for one charge of unauthorized access to computer material. Another charge was taken into consideration for sentencing. His contract with NCS was terminated in October 2022 due to poor work performance and his official last date of employment was Nov 16, 2022. According to court documents, Kandula felt "confused and upset" when he was fired as he felt he had performed well and "made good contributions" to NCS during his employment. After leaving NCS, he did not have another job in Singapore and returned to India.

Between November 2021 and October 2022, Kandula was part of a 20-member team managing the quality assurance (QA) computer system at NCS. NCS is a company that offers information communication and technology services. The system that Kandula's former team was managing was used to test new software and programs before launch. In a statement to CNA on Wednesday, NCS said it was a "standalone test system." It consisted of about 180 virtual servers, and no sensitive information was stored on them. After Kandula's contract was terminated and he arrived back in India, he used his laptop to gain unauthorized access to the system using the administrator login credentials. He did so on six occasions between Jan 6 and Jan 17, 2023.

In February that year, Kandula returned to Singapore after finding a new job. He rented a room with a former NCS colleague and used his Wi-Fi network to access NCS' system once on Feb 23, 2023. During the unauthorized access in those two months, he wrote some computer scripts to test if they could be used on the system to delete the servers. In March 2023, he accessed NCS' QA system 13 times. On Mar 18 and 19, he ran a programmed script to delete 180 virtual servers in the system. His script was written such that it would delete the servers one at a time. The following day, the NCS team realized the system was inaccessible and tried to troubleshoot, but to no avail. They discovered that the servers had been deleted. [...] As a result of his actions, NCS suffered a loss of $679,493.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from the New York Times: Chemical and manufacturing groups sued the federal government late Monday (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source) over a landmark drinking-water standard that would require cleanup of so-called forever chemicals linked to cancer and other health risks. The industry groups said that the government was exceeding its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring that municipal water systems all but remove six synthetic chemicals, known by the acronym PFAS, that are present in the tap water of hundreds of millions of Americans. The Environmental Protection Agency has said that the new standard, put in place in April, will prevent thousands of deaths and reduce tens of thousands of serious illnesses. The E.P.A.'s cleanup standard was also expected to prompt a wave of litigation against chemical manufacturers by water utilities nationwide trying to recoup their cleanup costs. Utilities have also challenged the stringent new standard, questioning the underlying science and citing the cost of filtering the toxic chemicals out of drinking water.

In a joint filing late Monday, the American Chemistry Council and National Association of Manufacturers said the E.P.A. rule was "arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion." The petition was filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In a separate petition, the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies said the E.P.A. had "significantly underestimated the costs" of the rule. Taxpayers could ultimately foot the bill in the form of increased water rates, they said. PFAS, a vast class of chemicals also called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, are widespread in the environment. They are commonly found in people's blood, and a 2023 government study of private wells and public water systems detected PFAS chemicals in nearly half the tap water in the country. Exposure to PFAS has been associated with developmental delays in children, decreased fertility in women and increased risk of some cancers, according to the E.P.A. [...] The E.P.A. estimates that it would cost water utilities about $1.5 billion annually to comply with the rule, though utilities have said the costs could be twice that amount. Further reading: Lawyers To Plastic Makers: Prepare For 'Astronomical' PFAS Lawsuits

Qualcomm faces potential disruption to its Windows on Arm laptops due to a legal battle with Arm, while MediaTek prepares to enter the market. Qualcomm's exclusivity deal with Microsoft for Copilot+ PCs, based on its Snapdragon SoCs, is set to expire this year.

MediaTek plans to launch its own Windows on Arm chip in late 2024, though it's unclear if it has Microsoft's approval. The legal dispute stems from Qualcomm's acquisition of Nuvia, with Arm claiming Nuvia's licenses are non-transferable without permission. Arm terminated the licenses, requiring Qualcomm to stop using processor designs developed under those agreements. Arm asserts current Copilot+ SoCs descend from Nuvia's chips, potentially subjecting them to an injunction if Arm prevails in court. Qualcomm maintains its existing Arm license rights cover its custom CPUs. Both companies declined to comment on the ongoing legal matter.

Brazil's government is partnering with OpenAI to use AI for expediting the screening and analysis of thousands of lawsuits to reduce costly court losses impacting the federal budget. Reuters reports: The AI service will flag to government the need to act on lawsuits before final decisions, mapping trends and potential action areas for the solicitor general's office (AGU). AGU told Reuters that Microsoft would provide the artificial intelligence services from ChatGPT creator OpenAI through its Azure cloud-computing platform. It did not say how much Brazil will pay for the services. AGU said the AI project would not replace the work of its members and employees. "It will help them gain efficiency and accuracy, with all activities fully supervised by humans," it said.

Court-ordered debt payments have consumed a growing share of Brazil's federal budget. The government estimated it would spend 70.7 billion reais ($13.2 billion) next year on judicial decisions where it can no longer appeal. The figure does not include small-value claims, which historically amount to around 30 billion reais annually. The combined amount of over 100 billion reais represents a sharp increase from 37.3 billion reais in 2015. It is equivalent to about 1% of gross domestic product, or 15% more than the government expects to spend on unemployment insurance and wage bonuses to low-income workers next year. AGU did not provide a reason for Brazil's rising court costs.

British police have arrested two individuals involved in an SMS-based phishing campaign using a unique device police described as a "homemade mobile antenna," "an illegitimate telephone mast," and a "text message blaster." This first-of-its-kind device in the UK was designed to send fraudulent texts impersonating banks and other official organizations, "all while allegedly bypassing network operators' anti-SMS-based phishing, or smishing, defenses," reports The Register. From the report: Thousands of messages were sent using this setup, City of London Police claimed on Friday, with those suspected to be behind the operation misrepresenting themselves as banks "and other official organizations" in their texts. [...] Huayong Xu, 32, of Alton Road in Croydon, was arrested on May 23 and remains the only individual identified by police in this investigation at this stage. He has been charged with possession of articles for use in fraud and will appear at Inner London Crown Court on June 26. The other individual, who wasn't identified and did not have their charges disclosed by police, was arrested on May 9 in Manchester and was bailed. [...]

Without any additional information to go on, it's difficult to make any kind of assumption about what these "text message blaster" devices might be. However, one possibility, judging from the messaging from the police, is that the plod are referring to an IMSI catcher aka a Stingray, which acts as a cellphone tower to communicate with people's handhelds. But those are intended primarily for surveillance. What's more likely is that the suspected UK device is perhaps some kind of SIM bank or collection of phones programmed to spam out shedloads of SMSes at a time.

Copycats are stepping up their attacks on small businesses. Sellers of products including merino socks and hummingbird feeders say they have lost customers to online scammers who use the legitimate business owners' videos, logos and social-media posts to assume their identities and steer customers to cheap knockoffs or simply take their money. WSJ: "We used to think you'd be targeted because you have a brand everywhere," said Alastair Gray, director of anticounterfeiting for the International Trademark Association, a nonprofit that represents brand owners. "It now seems with the ease at which these criminals can replicate websites, they can cut and paste everything." Technology has expanded the reach of even the smallest businesses, making it easy to court customers across the globe. But evolving technology has also boosted opportunities for copycats; ChatGPT and other advances in artificial intelligence make it easier to avoid language or spelling errors, often a signal of fraud.

Imitators also have fine-tuned their tactics, including by outbidding legitimate brands for top position in search results. "These counterfeiters will market themselves just like brands market themselves," said Rachel Aronson, co-founder of CounterFind, a Dallas-based brand-protection company. Policing copycats is particularly challenging for small businesses with limited financial resources and not many employees. Online giants such as Amazon.com and Meta Platforms say they use technology to identify and remove misleading ads, fake accounts or counterfeit products.

Michael Geist Pig Hogger (Slashdot reader #10,379) reminds us that in Canadian law, "fair use" is called "fair dealing" — and that Canadian digital media users just enjoyed a huge win. Canadian user rights champion Michael Geist writes: The Federal Court has issued a landmark decision on copyright's anti-circumvention rules which concludes that digital locks should not trump fair dealing. Rather, the two must co-exist in harmony, leading to an interpretation that users can still rely on fair dealing even in cases involving those digital locks.

The decision could have enormous implications for libraries, education, and users more broadly as it seeks to restore the copyright balance in the digital world. The decision also importantly concludes that merely requiring a password does not meet the standard needed to qualify for copyright rules involving technological protection measures.
Canada's 2012 "Copyright Modernization Act" protected anti-copying technology from circumvention, Geist writes — and Blacklock's Reports had then "argued that allowing anyone other than original subscriber to access articles constituted copyright infringement." The court found that the Blacklock's legal language associated with its licensing was confusing and that fair dealing applied here as well...

Blacklock's position on this issue was straightforward: it argued that its content was protected by a password, that passwords constituted a form of technological protection measure, and that fair dealing does not apply in the context of circumvention. In other words, it argued that the act of circumvention (in this case of a password) was itself infringing and it could not be saved by fair dealing. The Federal Court disagreed on all points...

For years, many have argued for a specific exception to clarify that circumvention was permitted for fair dealing purposes, essentially making the case that users should not lose their fair dealing rights the moment a rights holder places a digital lock on their work. The Federal Court has concluded that the fair dealing rights have remained there all along and that the Copyright Act's anti-circumvention rules must be interpreted in a manner consistent with those rights.
"The case could still be appealed, but for now the court has restored a critical aspect of the copyright balance after more than a decade of uncertainty and concern."