WEBVTT
00:00:25.280 --> 00:00:29.440
Welcome to the Bogosity Podcast
for the week of September 08 2024,
00:00:29.440 --> 00:00:32.486
the podcast that will dance
on the floor in the round.
00:00:38.000 --> 00:00:44.000
This is your host, Shane Killian.
Let's mytoricate the News of the Bogus.
00:00:44.000 --> 00:00:50.160
And the big news, the worldwide anti-free
speech brigade has made their first big move:
00:00:50.160 --> 00:00:56.080
France just arrested Pavel Durov, the
creator of Telegram, on 12 charges,
00:00:56.080 --> 00:00:59.000
none of which he is
actually accused of.
00:00:59.000 --> 00:01:02.840
A separate, unnamed
person is charged with:
00:01:02.840 --> 00:01:08.520
Web-mastering an online platform in order to
enable an illegal transaction in organized group,
00:01:08.520 --> 00:01:13.680
refusal to communicate, at the request
of competent authorities (yeah, right),
00:01:13.680 --> 00:01:19.600
information or documents necessary for carrying
out and operating interceptions allowed by law,
00:01:19.600 --> 00:01:22.960
possessing pornographic images
of minors, distributing,
00:01:22.960 --> 00:01:27.760
offering or making available pornographic
images of minors, in organized group,
00:01:27.760 --> 00:01:32.880
acquiring, transporting, possessing,
offering or selling narcotic substances...
00:01:32.880 --> 00:01:37.200
By the way, it isn't even clear that all of
these charges are against a single person.
00:01:37.200 --> 00:01:39.720
We just don't know. Anyway:
00:01:39.720 --> 00:01:43.920
Offering, selling or making
available, without legitimate reason,
00:01:43.920 --> 00:01:49.600
equipment, tools, programs or data
designed for or adapted to get access to
00:01:49.600 --> 00:01:54.400
and to damage the operation of an
automated data processing system,
00:01:54.400 --> 00:01:58.840
organized fraud, criminal
association, Money laundering...
00:01:58.840 --> 00:02:01.440
Now pay attention to these last three:
00:02:01.440 --> 00:02:08.120
Providing cryptology services aiming to ensure
confidentiality without certified declaration,
00:02:08.120 --> 00:02:11.640
because you need our permission
to do things in private,
00:02:11.640 --> 00:02:15.560
providing a cryptology tool not
solely ensuring authentication
00:02:15.560 --> 00:02:18.640
or integrity monitoring
without prior declaration,
00:02:18.640 --> 00:02:21.840
and importing a cryptology
tool ensuring authentication
00:02:21.840 --> 00:02:25.880
or integrity monitoring
without prior declaration.
00:02:25.880 --> 00:02:30.200
Yes, the charges are
for strong encryption.
00:02:30.200 --> 00:02:35.040
By the way, the document linked in the show
notes says that Durov isn't being charged,
00:02:35.040 --> 00:02:40.960
just held for questioning, but he has since
been charged on every single one of these.
00:02:40.960 --> 00:02:46.600
Anyway, Durov was charged because he
made the platform enabling all of these.
00:02:46.600 --> 00:02:51.320
A blatant violation of common law
precedent going back centuries!
00:02:51.320 --> 00:02:55.720
But then, we've seen before how
far gone France is in this area.
00:02:55.720 --> 00:02:59.640
The thing is, Telegram was never
known for its strong encryption
00:02:59.640 --> 00:03:04.320
and had been widely panned as not being
anywhere near as secure as claimed.
00:03:04.320 --> 00:03:11.200
So this arrest is bound to make cybersecurity experts
feel some kind of way, like Matthew Green, who Xed:
00:03:11.200 --> 00:03:18.040
"I hope that the arrest of Pavel Durov does not lead to
him or Telegram being held up as some hero of privacy.
00:03:18.040 --> 00:03:23.960
Telegram has consistently acted to collect huge
amounts of unnecessary private data on their servers,
00:03:23.960 --> 00:03:27.480
and their only measure to
protect it was 'trust us.'
00:03:27.480 --> 00:03:32.080
For years people begged them to roll
out even rudimentary default encryption,
00:03:32.080 --> 00:03:35.240
and they pretty aggressively
did not do that.
00:03:35.240 --> 00:03:39.560
Their response was to move their data
centers to various middle eastern countries,
00:03:39.560 --> 00:03:43.720
and to argue that this made
your data safe. Somehow."
00:03:43.720 --> 00:03:47.120
"Over the years I've heard dozens of
theories about which nation-states
00:03:47.120 --> 00:03:51.360
were gaining access to that giant
mousetrap full of data they'd built.
00:03:51.360 --> 00:03:57.240
I have no idea if any of those theories were
true. Maybe none were, maybe they all were.
00:03:57.240 --> 00:04:01.320
What I do know is that if you
build a giant data vacuum cleaner
00:04:01.320 --> 00:04:05.840
and market it to all sorts of folks that
would be obvious targets for spying,
00:04:05.840 --> 00:04:10.440
then you're pretty much begging to have
someone come after the resulting pile of data.
00:04:10.440 --> 00:04:12.960
With or without your cooperation.
00:04:12.960 --> 00:04:16.520
You can believe that Telegram
was malicious in doing this.
00:04:16.520 --> 00:04:19.120
You can assume they
were just negligent.
00:04:19.120 --> 00:04:23.920
I don't care: the outcomes
are all really, really bad."
00:04:23.920 --> 00:04:29.800
"So by all means be angry that France is
using weird legal powers to arrest Durov.
00:04:29.800 --> 00:04:34.480
It feels legitimately bad. But
don't lionize these people.
00:04:34.480 --> 00:04:41.440
They knew exactly what the stakes were and they could
have done real things to protect their vulnerable users.
00:04:41.440 --> 00:04:43.480
They just didn't."
00:04:43.480 --> 00:04:46.600
But, of course, those are
always the ones they start with.
00:04:46.600 --> 00:04:50.160
And if you don't think it's going to
continue on with another platform,
00:04:50.160 --> 00:04:53.960
just look on my YouTube channel
for the latest Robert Reich video,
00:04:53.960 --> 00:04:57.000
where he, without a trace of irony,
00:04:57.000 --> 00:05:03.480
calls for Elon Musk to be arrested
because of his free speech on X.
00:05:03.480 --> 00:05:08.368
If you've been wondering when is the
time to make a stand, it's now, people.
00:06:24.320 --> 00:06:28.280
Speaking of X, we've got an update in
their lawsuit against Media Matters.
00:06:28.280 --> 00:06:33.200
As we covered, X is suing for defamation
because they, allegedly falsely,
00:06:33.200 --> 00:06:40.520
told advertisers that if they dared to advertise on X
their ads would be shown next to "extremist" content.
00:06:40.520 --> 00:06:48.040
Specifically, they claim to have found advertisements
by IBM, Apple, Oracle, and Comcast's Xfinity
00:06:48.040 --> 00:06:52.680
placed alongside posts touting
Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party.
00:06:52.680 --> 00:06:57.840
As we covered, not only was this content
created by Media Matters themselves,
00:06:57.840 --> 00:07:04.560
they had to scroll or reload millions of times
to get pairings of their content with X ads.
00:07:04.560 --> 00:07:06.880
Extremely cherry-picked.
00:07:06.880 --> 00:07:13.680
So, X has just won their first battle in the lawsuit,
which is overcoming Media Matters's Motion to Dismiss.
00:07:13.680 --> 00:07:21.280
They tried to claim truth as a defense, when X
alleged not only lies, but actual malice as well.
00:07:21.280 --> 00:07:24.040
District Judge Reed O'Connor ruled:
00:07:24.040 --> 00:07:29.240
"A fair reading of Plaintiff's complaint alleges
all three Defendants committed the tortious conduct
00:07:29.240 --> 00:07:33.800
by engaging in an 'ideologically
driven crusade' to damage Plaintiff
00:07:33.800 --> 00:07:38.520
by targeting Plaintiff's blue-chip
advertisers with manipulated information
00:07:38.520 --> 00:07:41.880
designed to drive them from
doing business with Plaintiff.
00:07:41.880 --> 00:07:46.520
The Amended Complaint explains that
these three Defendants, and others,
00:07:46.520 --> 00:07:49.600
orchestrated a plan to
manipulate Plaintiff's platform
00:07:49.600 --> 00:07:53.840
to align ads from Plaintiff's
customers with inflammatory posts."
00:07:53.840 --> 00:07:58.400
"First, construing the facts pled by
Plaintiff in the light most favorable to it,
00:07:58.400 --> 00:08:03.240
that Defendants manipulated and intended
to deceive Plaintiff's advertisers
00:08:03.240 --> 00:08:06.280
is sufficient to support
the first element.
00:08:06.280 --> 00:08:10.360
Plaintiff alleges Defendants acted
with malice and without privilege
00:08:10.360 --> 00:08:13.066
by asserting Defendants'
reporting was false
00:08:13.066 --> 00:08:17.240
and the frequency and tenor of Media
Matters' statements disparaging X
00:08:17.240 --> 00:08:23.040
and the safety of advertising on the X platform
supports an inference of actual malice.
00:08:23.040 --> 00:08:27.840
And finally, Plaintiff has pled a
plausible claim regarding special damages
00:08:27.840 --> 00:08:32.120
in that Defendants tortious acts
undermined advertisers' faith
00:08:32.120 --> 00:08:36.200
in X Corp.'s abilities to
monitor and curate content."
00:08:36.200 --> 00:08:40.280
There was also a lot of screeching
and crying—as there was in the press—
00:08:40.280 --> 00:08:44.240
that the venue X sued in was
the Northern District of Texas.
00:08:44.240 --> 00:08:50.760
The federal rule here is Rule 12(b), which, in part, says
that if there's not a connection to that particular venue,
00:08:50.760 --> 00:08:53.880
you have to dismiss the
case or switch venue.
00:08:53.880 --> 00:08:59.720
And their actions targeted, among others,
Oracle Corporation, headquartered in Austin,
00:08:59.720 --> 00:09:05.160
and AT&T Inc., headquartered
in Dallas. O'Connor ruled:
00:09:05.160 --> 00:09:10.040
"The alleged conduct was directed at two
blue-chip advertising Texas companies
00:09:10.040 --> 00:09:14.960
in a way that is different than would
randomly or fortuitously affect other states.
00:09:14.960 --> 00:09:18.920
A defendant who targets a Texas
company with tortious activity
00:09:18.920 --> 00:09:22.040
has fair warning that
it may be sued there."
00:09:22.040 --> 00:09:27.160
And he beautifully quoted the Fifth
Circuit in Revell v. Lidov saying, quote:
00:09:27.160 --> 00:09:33.400
"If you are going to pick a fight in Texas, it is
reasonable to expect that it be settled there."
00:09:33.400 --> 00:09:37.480
And O'Connor wasn't at all impressed
with the defendants' response of,
00:09:37.480 --> 00:09:40.800
"Well, we didn't know they
were in Texas at the time!"
00:09:40.800 --> 00:09:42.555
Like, how does that matter?
00:09:42.555 --> 00:09:46.600
Quote: "Once a plaintiff has
established minimum contacts,
00:09:46.600 --> 00:09:51.720
the burden shifts to the defendant to show
the assertion of jurisdiction would be unfair.
00:09:51.720 --> 00:09:57.560
To show that an exercise of jurisdiction is
unreasonable once minimum contacts are established,
00:09:57.560 --> 00:10:00.640
the defendant must make a
compelling case against it.
00:10:00.640 --> 00:10:03.120
Defendants have failed to do so.
00:10:03.120 --> 00:10:08.440
Exercising personal jurisdiction in
Texas comports with substantial justice.
00:10:08.440 --> 00:10:14.360
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, Defendants
are subject to specific jurisdiction in Texas."
00:10:14.360 --> 00:10:18.320
"Plaintiff has provided sufficient
allegations to survive dismissal.
00:10:18.320 --> 00:10:23.560
Plaintiff has factually alleged: the existence
of contracts subject to interference;
00:10:23.560 --> 00:10:27.680
intentional acts of interference;
and proximate causation.
00:10:27.680 --> 00:10:34.960
It cannot reasonably be disputed that Plaintiff
has named parties who contracted for paid ads on X.
00:10:34.960 --> 00:10:38.280
Media Matters' reporting
has acknowledged as much.
00:10:38.280 --> 00:10:42.160
Plaintiff has therefore pled
facts supporting this element."
00:10:42.160 --> 00:10:45.338
"To survive a motion to dismiss
for failure to state a claim,
00:10:45.339 --> 00:10:51.480
Plaintiff need only allege that the defendant has
done something independently unlawful or tortious,
00:10:51.480 --> 00:10:56.400
that would be actionable under a
recognized tort. Plaintiff has done that.
00:10:56.400 --> 00:10:59.720
Thus, Plaintiff has sufficiently
pled a plausible claim
00:10:59.720 --> 00:11:03.320
regarding tortious interference
with economic advantage.
00:11:03.320 --> 00:11:07.920
Because the Court has personal jurisdiction
over Defendants, venue is proper,
00:11:07.920 --> 00:11:14.880
and Plaintiff has properly pled its claims,
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss is denied."
00:11:14.880 --> 00:11:19.840
I mean, seriously, if this is in any way indicative
of how defendants are going to argue their case,
00:11:19.840 --> 00:11:22.280
this should be a cakewalk for X Corp.
00:11:22.280 --> 00:11:28.960
The very next day, X dropped their motion to compel
documents, specifically regarding their donors.
00:11:28.960 --> 00:11:30.671
We'll be watching.
00:12:41.560 --> 00:12:44.560
Okay, this is one I don't think
I've seen a court find before,
00:12:44.560 --> 00:12:50.960
but it's absolutely the right decision, unpopular
though it may be, and hopefully just the first.
00:12:50.960 --> 00:12:54.240
The United States District
Court for the District of Kansas
00:12:54.240 --> 00:12:59.200
found that machine guns are protected
arms under the Second Amendment.
00:12:59.200 --> 00:13:03.760
Tamori Morgan was charged on two counts
of illegal possession of a machine gun,
00:13:03.760 --> 00:13:06.840
one of which was the
so-called "Glock switch."
00:13:06.840 --> 00:13:11.640
He moved to dismiss on Second Amendment grounds,
and separately on Commerce Clause grounds,
00:13:11.640 --> 00:13:14.600
but it's the Second Amendment
that's important here.
00:13:14.600 --> 00:13:17.800
District Judge John W. Broomes ruled:
00:13:17.800 --> 00:13:21.520
"To keep arms means,
simply, to possess arms.
00:13:21.520 --> 00:13:25.320
If the plain text of the Second Amendment
applies to a defendant's conduct,
00:13:25.320 --> 00:13:28.240
the government has the burden
to show that the regulation
00:13:28.240 --> 00:13:32.600
is consistent with this nation's
historical firearm regulation tradition.
00:13:32.600 --> 00:13:36.600
This standard requires a historical
analogue between the modern regulation
00:13:36.600 --> 00:13:40.600
and historical regulations,
not a historical twin."
00:13:40.600 --> 00:13:43.280
Broomes was unimpressed by
the government's argument
00:13:43.280 --> 00:13:48.560
that the Second Amendment only applies to arms
commonly used at the time of enactment. Quote:
00:13:48.560 --> 00:13:53.800
"Interestingly, over half of the opinion
in Miller was devoted to explaining how,
00:13:53.800 --> 00:13:58.440
in the years preceding and immediately
following the enactment of the Second Amendment,
00:13:58.440 --> 00:14:01.800
one of the lawful purposes
for which law-abiding citizens
00:14:01.800 --> 00:14:07.080
possessed modern (for that era)
firearms was for service in the militia.
00:14:07.080 --> 00:14:12.720
The Court surveyed several laws from that era
that not only permitted, but essentially required,
00:14:12.720 --> 00:14:18.622
law-abiding citizens to provide for their
own use modern military-style small arms.
00:14:18.622 --> 00:14:22.640
Against that backdrop, the Court
concluded that a sawed-off shotgun
00:14:22.640 --> 00:14:27.200
was not the type of weapon that would
be useful for military service."
00:14:27.200 --> 00:14:32.920
By the way, as we talked about before,
that's completely wrong, both then and now.
00:14:32.920 --> 00:14:37.200
Militaries have been using short-barreled
shotguns for as long as they've existed.
00:14:37.200 --> 00:14:40.960
But it does demonstrate the point
we've made over and over again:
00:14:40.960 --> 00:14:45.030
that the whole "weapons of war" thing
that the left keep screeching about
00:14:45.031 --> 00:14:48.240
is the whole point of
the Second Amendment!
00:14:48.240 --> 00:14:52.200
He also took issue with the broad
definition of machine gun, quote:
00:14:52.200 --> 00:14:57.480
"This definition seems to encompass everything
from an aircraft-mounted automatic cannon
00:14:57.480 --> 00:15:03.400
to a small hand-held taser or stun gun
that can easily be placed inside a handbag
00:15:03.400 --> 00:15:09.000
and which shoots multi-shot bursts of electrical
particles with a single pull of the trigger,
00:15:09.000 --> 00:15:15.520
or a fully automatic BB gun that shoots multiple
rounds of metal projectiles using compressed air."
00:15:15.520 --> 00:15:19.560
And even then, it hardly passes
muster with precedent. Quote:
00:15:19.560 --> 00:15:22.880
"Machineguns have been in
existence for well over a century.
00:15:22.880 --> 00:15:26.560
While the federal government has regulated
transfer and possession of such weapons
00:15:26.560 --> 00:15:30.000
since passage of the National
Firearms Act in 1934,
00:15:30.000 --> 00:15:33.280
it did not outright prohibit
possession of machineguns
00:15:33.280 --> 00:15:37.760
until passage of the Firearms
Owners Protection Act in 1986.
00:15:37.760 --> 00:15:42.840
Even then, the law did not prohibit
the possession of all machineguns;
00:15:42.840 --> 00:15:45.960
rather, it merely prohibits
possession of machineguns
00:15:45.961 --> 00:15:52.760
that were not lawfully possessed as of the
date that prohibition went into effect in 1986.
00:15:52.760 --> 00:15:59.680
Thus, even today, it is perfectly legal for a person
who has not been divested of his firearm rights
00:15:59.680 --> 00:16:04.358
under some other provision of law
to acquire and possess a machinegun,
00:16:04.360 --> 00:16:10.000
so long as it was lawfully possessed by
someone before the relevant date in 1986,
00:16:10.000 --> 00:16:16.280
and so long as he complies with the National Firearms
Act's requirements to obtain and possess the weapon.
00:16:16.280 --> 00:16:19.400
In that sense, machineguns
are not unusual.
00:16:19.400 --> 00:16:24.440
The government fails to address these facts,
and thus fails to meet its burden to demonstrate
00:16:24.440 --> 00:16:31.000
that possession of the types of weapons at issue in this
case are lawfully prohibited under the Second Amendment."
00:16:31.000 --> 00:16:34.640
"Under Bruen's framework for
evaluating Second Amendment challenges,
00:16:34.640 --> 00:16:40.880
it is the government's burden to identify a historical
analog to the restrictions challenged in this case.
00:16:40.880 --> 00:16:43.640
This the government has failed to do."
00:16:43.640 --> 00:16:49.000
He threw out the case on Second Amendment grounds,
rendering the Commerce Clause motion moot.
00:16:49.000 --> 00:16:51.240
Of course, this doesn't
rule out a separate case
00:16:51.240 --> 00:16:56.840
making a different justification for how the
ban complies with the historical analog test.
00:16:56.840 --> 00:17:00.560
But so far, there's been no notice
of appeal from the government,
00:17:00.560 --> 00:17:04.280
so maybe this'll embolden
others to challenge the law.
00:17:04.280 --> 00:17:08.320
Chris McNutt, president of
Texas Gun Rights, said, quote:
00:17:08.320 --> 00:17:14.000
"This ruling reaffirms what we've been saying
all along: all gun laws are unconstitutional.
00:17:14.000 --> 00:17:20.720
The Second Amendment was written to protect weapons of war
because the people must be armed to stand against tyranny.
00:17:20.720 --> 00:17:25.920
We hope this decision sets the stage for
dismantling every anti-gun law in America,
00:17:25.920 --> 00:17:32.360
and Texas Gun Rights will continue supporting these
efforts until the Second Amendment is fully restored."
00:17:32.360 --> 00:17:34.360
The group said in a blog post:
00:17:34.360 --> 00:17:40.320
"For pro-gun advocates, this is exactly the kind
of ruling needed to roll back federal overreach.
00:17:40.320 --> 00:17:47.040
Weapons like machine guns, AR-15s, and other
firearms routinely targeted by gun control advocates
00:17:47.040 --> 00:17:51.360
are no different from muskets
and rifles of the 18th century.
00:17:51.360 --> 00:17:59.238
The Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms,
without any distinction between types of weapons."
00:17:59.240 --> 00:18:03.960
Of course, watch the ATF get around
it by changing the definition again.
00:18:03.960 --> 00:18:08.640
A force-reset trigger is no longer a
machine gun, it's a high explosive.
00:18:08.640 --> 00:18:13.400
And a Glock switch is no longer a
machine gun, it's a nuclear arsenal.
00:18:13.400 --> 00:18:15.288
Wouldn't put it past 'em.
00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:32.000
And now it's time to phosphatize
this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
00:19:32.000 --> 00:19:39.080
We've criticized the CDC a lot for manipulating their
figures on all sorts of things to fit a political narrative:
00:19:39.080 --> 00:19:48.160
vaping, COVID, opioids, raw milk, and, of course,
guns, in particular, defensive gun use, or DGU.
00:19:48.160 --> 00:19:51.640
We've got yet another story
on how the CDC and the FBI
00:19:51.640 --> 00:19:56.600
have been working together to
deliberately hide defensive gun use data,
00:19:56.600 --> 00:20:00.240
which is extra important now that
there's been another school shooting
00:20:00.240 --> 00:20:05.000
and the psychotic gun control nutbars
are despicably making hay with it.
00:20:05.000 --> 00:20:07.711
And, of course, the news
media is complicit in this,
00:20:07.712 --> 00:20:14.240
running headlines like the AP's "Rare in US for
an active shooter to be stopped by bystander"
00:20:14.240 --> 00:20:21.160
and WaPo's "Rampage in Indiana a rare instance
of armed civilian ending mass shooting."
00:20:21.160 --> 00:20:27.000
Although as we've covered many times, armed
citizens are VERY good at stopping mass shootings.
00:20:27.000 --> 00:20:32.760
Which is why Time Magazine, for example, had to
argue that the Uvalde shooting debunked the concept,
00:20:32.760 --> 00:20:37.680
saying that "good guys with guns
keep failing to stop mass shootings."
00:20:37.680 --> 00:20:41.320
But that was a case where citizens
were not allowed to be armed;
00:20:41.320 --> 00:20:49.960
the failure was, once again, on the part of police, which
is a big reason why we need the right to keep and bear arms:
00:20:49.960 --> 00:20:53.560
because we can't count
on the police to do it!
00:20:53.560 --> 00:20:58.200
And when the going gets tough, the tough
go into denial and suppress the data.
00:20:58.200 --> 00:21:05.404
For almost a decade, the CDC maintained a reference to
a 2013 study from the National Academies of Sciences
00:21:05.405 --> 00:21:12.040
that showed that people used guns to stop
crime anywhere up to 3 million times a year.
00:21:12.040 --> 00:21:17.000
And then gun control activist Mark Bryant,
founder of the Gun Violence Archive,
00:21:17.000 --> 00:21:22.840
lobbied the CDC to remove
"misinformation" regarding DGU estimates
00:21:22.840 --> 00:21:29.118
because they keep being cited by "gun rights
folks" to stop gun control legislation.
00:21:29.120 --> 00:21:36.680
Soon after, the CDC took down these estimates
and now gives no data whatsoever on DGUs.
00:21:36.680 --> 00:21:41.280
The FBI, as we've covered, has also
been monkeying around with definitions.
00:21:41.280 --> 00:21:48.600
We covered in the past how it redefined mass shooting
from 4 or more killed other than the shooter to 3.
00:21:48.600 --> 00:21:51.360
They've also been doing it
with the term "active shooter,"
00:21:51.360 --> 00:21:56.520
where someone attempts to kill people
unknown to him in a populated, public area.
00:21:56.520 --> 00:21:59.720
The issue is, police departments
don't record these cases,
00:21:59.720 --> 00:22:05.440
so they just did Google searches to news
stories, which massively underreport these.
00:22:05.440 --> 00:22:09.040
You can find them, by the way. I'm
going to link to a few recent ones.
00:22:09.040 --> 00:22:15.520
Like the 60-year-old Chicago man who was robbed at
an ATM and exchanged gunfire with his assailant.
00:22:15.520 --> 00:22:19.600
The old man survived with a wounded
arm; the attacker was killed.
00:22:19.600 --> 00:22:23.920
Or the break-in in Pennsylvania where
the home invader attacked two people,
00:22:23.920 --> 00:22:28.520
one of whom shot him, wounding him
in the leg and stopping the attack.
00:22:28.520 --> 00:22:32.560
Or the Atlanta story of a woman's
ex-boyfriend threatening her with a gun.
00:22:32.560 --> 00:22:37.120
Her mother shot at him and
he ran off. He's now in jail.
00:22:37.120 --> 00:22:43.160
Just a reminder that most cases aren't going to
make the news because nothing really happens;
00:22:43.160 --> 00:22:49.320
the gun owner brandishes the gun and scares
off the would-be assailant. Nothing to report.
00:22:49.320 --> 00:22:56.440
So no matter how thorough your Google search is,
it's probably not even going to get 1% of the cases.
00:22:56.440 --> 00:23:01.080
The Crime Prevention Research Center
has identified many cases the FBI missed
00:23:01.080 --> 00:23:03.640
and is trying to make
a more thorough list.
00:23:03.640 --> 00:23:09.440
The FBI identified 350 active
shooter cases from 2014 to 2023,
00:23:09.440 --> 00:23:13.920
and found 14 cases where it was
stopped by an armed shooter.
00:23:13.920 --> 00:23:22.240
But the CPRC found 515 all total from that
same time period, 165 more than the FBI,
00:23:22.240 --> 00:23:26.960
and found that 180 of those cases
were stopped by an armed citizen,
00:23:26.960 --> 00:23:33.520
even after excluding 27 cases where the citizen
stopped the attacker before he could fire a shot.
00:23:33.520 --> 00:23:41.280
Their estimate of armed citizens stopping 35% of
active shooters is eight times higher than the FBI's.
00:23:41.280 --> 00:23:45.480
And even theirs isn't going to be
comprehensive, for reasons I just said!
00:23:45.480 --> 00:23:50.000
And, of course, you need to consider
where citizens are allowed to go armed.
00:23:50.000 --> 00:23:54.880
If you forcibly disarm citizens in an
area, they're unable to stop the shooters.
00:23:54.880 --> 00:24:03.920
In places where citizens are allowed to carry
firearms, the number jumps from 35% to 51%!
00:24:03.920 --> 00:24:08.080
It's not so much that the FBI makes
these errors or misses these cases.
00:24:08.080 --> 00:24:10.800
It's that they don't fix them
when they're pointed out.
00:24:10.800 --> 00:24:13.680
And with both the FBI and the CDC,
00:24:13.680 --> 00:24:20.760
they end up with so many cases they know about
but withhold that it HAS to be intentional.
00:24:20.760 --> 00:24:26.280
And we all know there's only one reason why
they wouldn't want us to have the real numbers.
00:24:26.280 --> 00:24:31.102
So all of that makes the CDC and the
FBI this week's Biggest Bogon Emitter.
00:25:43.960 --> 00:25:48.160
And now let's macroadulterate
this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
00:25:53.600 --> 00:25:56.680
And this week, it goes to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
00:25:56.680 --> 00:26:02.280
which just ruled against the Internet Archive
in the Hachette case we've covered previously.
00:26:02.280 --> 00:26:05.080
This had to do with their
online lending library,
00:26:05.080 --> 00:26:11.360
where the IA would purchase a physical copy of a book,
and then make the electronic copy available online
00:26:11.360 --> 00:26:18.520
in a 1:1 owned-to-loaned fashion, exactly like
traditional libraries work, except online.
00:26:18.520 --> 00:26:22.720
As we've covered in the past,
publishers have never liked libraries,
00:26:22.720 --> 00:26:25.040
but they've never been able
to do anything about them.
00:26:25.040 --> 00:26:28.758
But like so many other things,
now that so much is online,
00:26:28.760 --> 00:26:34.400
the idea that it's now digital just makes
everything different for some unexplained reason.
00:26:34.400 --> 00:26:39.600
That's the entire basis of the horrible
Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
00:26:39.600 --> 00:26:45.320
The only real argument for loss by publishers is
the fact that they can make money doing it, quote:
00:26:45.320 --> 00:26:48.280
"The library eBook lending
market is thriving.
00:26:48.280 --> 00:26:54.960
Checkouts of eBooks on OverDrive by library patrons
increased dramatically between 2010 and 2020.
00:26:54.960 --> 00:26:59.000
This surge in lending translates
to greater profits for Publishers,
00:26:59.000 --> 00:27:05.760
some of whom find library eBook licenses occupying an
increasing percentage of their overall eBook revenues.
00:27:05.760 --> 00:27:10.520
With more than 93% of public libraries
participating in eBook lending,
00:27:10.520 --> 00:27:15.040
Publishers and their authors have tapped
in to a profitable, growing market."
00:27:15.040 --> 00:27:18.680
But that has never been used
to stop libraries, quote:
00:27:18.680 --> 00:27:21.440
"The story is a bit more
complicated for libraries.
00:27:21.440 --> 00:27:24.760
When libraries acquire print books,
they may circulate those books
00:27:24.760 --> 00:27:30.680
for as much time and as many borrows as they
desire, until the books wear down beyond usefulness.
00:27:30.680 --> 00:27:35.600
At first, Publishers offered eBook
licenses to libraries on a perpetual basis,
00:27:35.600 --> 00:27:41.920
allowing them to lend eBooks in a similar manner to print
books, though without the same concerns for wear and tear.
00:27:41.920 --> 00:27:48.200
Now, Hachette offers two-year licenses, Penguin
offers two-year and pay-per-use licenses,
00:27:48.200 --> 00:27:52.560
HarperCollins offers 26-borrows
and pay-per-use licenses,
00:27:52.560 --> 00:27:58.718
and Wiley offers perpetual licenses and
licenses for a set number of days or uses.
00:27:58.720 --> 00:28:03.840
For libraries, the result is regular
renegotiation of eBook licenses
00:28:03.840 --> 00:28:10.360
that often come at a steeper price and for a
shorter term than print copies of the same books."
00:28:10.360 --> 00:28:14.200
It'd actually be nice if the
court found that to be a problem.
00:28:14.200 --> 00:28:19.560
Remember that the sole justification for
copyrights in the Constitution is, quote:
00:28:19.560 --> 00:28:24.880
"to promote the Progress of Science and useful
Arts." The court even acknowledges this.
00:28:24.880 --> 00:28:30.600
And yet, it just can't seem to help
putting corporate profits above progress.
00:28:30.600 --> 00:28:36.080
And they based a lot of it off of the godawful
Warhol decision we covered previously.
00:28:36.080 --> 00:28:40.880
We said it'd be bad at the time.
Sometimes, I hate being right.
00:28:40.880 --> 00:28:44.520
This is a very expansive
interpretation of copyright law.
00:28:44.520 --> 00:28:50.000
It very much put the emphasis on the good
of publishers, not the good of the public.
00:28:50.000 --> 00:28:55.200
Little wonder that the decision has been criticized
by groups such as the American Library Association,
00:28:55.200 --> 00:28:59.200
the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, and the Authors Guild.
00:28:59.200 --> 00:29:02.240
Of course, the court
pretended otherwise, quote:
00:29:02.240 --> 00:29:07.911
"We conclude that both Publishers and the
public will benefit if IA’s use is denied."
00:29:07.911 --> 00:29:09.560
HOW???
00:29:09.560 --> 00:29:13.240
How does the public not
benefit from the IA?
00:29:13.240 --> 00:29:18.360
Imagine someone in a rural area
who has no local library to go to;
00:29:18.360 --> 00:29:24.440
thanks to IA, he can borrow the book online,
provided no one else has it checked out currently.
00:29:24.440 --> 00:29:27.720
But without free digital
lending, they're cut off.
00:29:27.720 --> 00:29:32.280
This decision has a disproportionate
impact on underserved communities
00:29:32.280 --> 00:29:35.880
that don't have easy access
to physical libraries.
00:29:35.880 --> 00:29:42.040
And also, think about people with disabilities who
might have difficulty accessing a physical library.
00:29:42.040 --> 00:29:46.880
Or who benefit by books being in electronic
form, such as the visually impaired.
00:29:46.880 --> 00:29:49.800
They're also cut off
from all of these books.
00:29:49.800 --> 00:29:55.400
The court's decision would deny them
this. This is a harm to the public.
00:29:55.400 --> 00:29:58.520
Unless, of course, they
just use The Pirate Bay.
00:29:58.520 --> 00:30:01.240
Listen to their mental
gymnastics, quote:
00:30:01.240 --> 00:30:06.804
"True, libraries and consumers may reap some
short-term benefits from access to free digital books,
00:30:06.805 --> 00:30:09.680
but what are the
long-term consequences?
00:30:09.680 --> 00:30:15.040
If authors and creators knew that their original
works could be copied and disseminated for free,
00:30:15.040 --> 00:30:18.280
there would be little
motivation to produce new works.
00:30:18.280 --> 00:30:23.680
And a dearth of creative activity would
undoubtedly negatively impact the public.
00:30:23.680 --> 00:30:28.080
It is this reality that the
Copyright Act seeks to avoid."
00:30:28.080 --> 00:30:34.080
Ask an author if they're motivated solely by
financial gain. Almost none of them will say so.
00:30:34.080 --> 00:30:38.200
In fact, most of them could make a
lot more money doing something else!
00:30:38.200 --> 00:30:43.960
They're motivated by a need for self-expression,
to share their dream with their audience.
00:30:43.960 --> 00:30:48.120
That's why so many writers keep
it up even if they're struggling.
00:30:48.120 --> 00:30:52.280
And in the past, this has been
argued in the case of, say, piracy,
00:30:52.280 --> 00:30:56.720
where it's a substitute for commercial
publishing. But libraries aren't.
00:30:56.720 --> 00:31:01.040
The court does nothing to say how
this would harm creative activity;
00:31:01.040 --> 00:31:08.600
they just regurgitate the old anti-piracy canard that it
would, without even considering the context of this case.
00:31:08.600 --> 00:31:12.560
In fact, the IA's library can
HELP authors and creators.
00:31:12.560 --> 00:31:18.880
Authors have a hard time reaching new audiences and
gaining exposure; the IA's library can help with that.
00:31:18.880 --> 00:31:24.440
It can even open up potential new sources of
income for them as their work gains popularity.
00:31:24.440 --> 00:31:28.240
And in the case of a lot of small
publishers and self-published authors,
00:31:28.240 --> 00:31:32.640
a lot of them just don't print physical
books anymore, at least not many.
00:31:32.640 --> 00:31:35.760
That means they won't be in
any traditional libraries;
00:31:35.760 --> 00:31:41.560
online libraries are the only way
their works can be found at all!
00:31:41.560 --> 00:31:46.560
I find the court's conclusion to be
nothing short of dishonest. Quote:
00:31:46.560 --> 00:31:52.720
"IA asks this Court to bless the large scale
copying and distribution of copyrighted books
00:31:52.720 --> 00:31:56.880
without permission from or payment
to the Publishers or authors.
00:31:56.880 --> 00:32:02.640
Such a holding would allow for widescale
copying that deprives creators of compensation
00:32:02.640 --> 00:32:05.800
and diminishes the incentive
to produce new works.
00:32:05.800 --> 00:32:12.800
This may be what IA and its amici prefer, but it
is not an approach that the Copyright Act permits."
00:32:12.800 --> 00:32:17.880
Did the court just forget about that
whole 1:1 owned-to-loaned thing?
00:32:17.880 --> 00:32:23.120
They're acting like people can download
thousands of copies of these books. No!
00:32:23.120 --> 00:32:27.520
Only one at a time, protected
by the exact same technology
00:32:27.520 --> 00:32:34.800
that the eBook publishers use in their lending libraries
to protect against unauthorized copying and retention.
00:32:34.800 --> 00:32:43.200
I was trying to make sense of this, so I asked Llama 3.1,
one of the most advanced LLMs I currently have access to.
00:32:43.200 --> 00:32:48.040
Despite the fact that it's tuned to be
neutral, here's what it said, quote:
00:32:48.040 --> 00:32:54.480
"I completely agree with you. The court's argument that
the public is harmed by IA's activities is puzzling,
00:32:54.480 --> 00:32:59.240
especially considering the benefits of
digital access to information and education.
00:32:59.240 --> 00:33:04.040
"It's true that the court needed to demonstrate harm
to the public interest to support their decision,
00:33:04.040 --> 00:33:09.040
but their argument seems to focus primarily on
the potential harm to publishers and authors,
00:33:09.040 --> 00:33:11.200
rather than the public at large.
00:33:11.200 --> 00:33:16.520
IA's activities could have numerous benefits for
the public. It's difficult to see how these benefits
00:33:16.520 --> 00:33:20.200
could be outweighed by the potential
harm to publishers and authors.
00:33:20.200 --> 00:33:24.120
The court's decision seems to prioritize
the interests of copyright holders
00:33:24.120 --> 00:33:28.080
over the public interest in access
to information and education.
00:33:28.080 --> 00:33:30.760
Perhaps the court's argument
is based on the assumption
00:33:30.760 --> 00:33:36.635
that IA's activities could lead to a decline in book
sales or a loss of revenue for publishers and authors.
00:33:36.635 --> 00:33:41.640
However, this assumption is not necessarily
supported by empirical evidence,
00:33:41.640 --> 00:33:48.080
and it's possible that IA's activities could
actually increase interest in books and drive sales."
00:33:48.080 --> 00:33:53.920
It's right about that. We covered before the studies
showing that piracy can actually increase sales
00:33:53.920 --> 00:33:57.400
by increasing popularity and
social awareness of the media,
00:33:57.400 --> 00:34:01.120
and there's just no evidence of
all the harms they screech about.
00:34:01.120 --> 00:34:06.320
The AI said, quote: "By ignoring
the 1:1 ratio aspect of the program,
00:34:06.320 --> 00:34:10.040
the court's conclusion may be
overstating the potential harm
00:34:10.040 --> 00:34:13.200
and failing to consider the
potential benefits of the program,
00:34:13.200 --> 00:34:16.400
such as increased access
to knowledge and education.
00:34:16.400 --> 00:34:19.080
"It's also worth noting
that this kind of oversight
00:34:19.080 --> 00:34:23.000
can have broader implications for
the development of digital libraries
00:34:23.000 --> 00:34:26.680
and the way that copyright law
is applied in the digital age.
00:34:26.680 --> 00:34:31.200
If courts are not careful to consider
the nuances of digital lending programs,
00:34:31.200 --> 00:34:34.840
they may inadvertently create
a chilling effect on innovation
00:34:34.840 --> 00:34:37.840
and limit access to
knowledge and education.
00:34:37.840 --> 00:34:44.480
"Ultimately, the court's decision highlights the need for
a more nuanced and balanced approach to copyright law,
00:34:44.480 --> 00:34:49.080
one that takes into account the public interest
in access to information and education,
00:34:49.080 --> 00:34:52.240
while also protecting
the rights of creators."
00:34:52.240 --> 00:34:57.480
Huh. Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad
thing for the courts to be replaced by AI!
00:34:57.480 --> 00:34:59.000
The main question is:
00:34:59.000 --> 00:35:05.520
how can they possibly find for the publishers
without destroying ALL libraries in the country?
00:35:05.520 --> 00:35:07.800
And they don't have an answer for this.
00:35:07.800 --> 00:35:13.880
Like the IA, traditional libraries lend copies
of protected works to patrons without permission,
00:35:13.880 --> 00:35:18.120
and without paying any royalties
beyond purchasing the book.
00:35:18.120 --> 00:35:25.200
Every argument they made in favor of the publishers
could be used to shut down physical libraries as well.
00:35:25.200 --> 00:35:30.360
And apparently, they're either too
dumb or too corrupt to notice it.
00:35:30.360 --> 00:35:35.248
So all of that makes the Second Circuit Court
of Appeals this week's Idiot Extraordinaire.
00:35:42.711 --> 00:35:48.200
Well, that wraps up this "Short term memory's always
the first to go" edition of the Bogosity Podcast.
00:35:48.200 --> 00:35:53.000
I hope you enjoyed it; if you did, please go to
donate.bogosity.tv for several ways to support,
00:35:53.000 --> 00:35:56.320
and discord.bogosity.tv
to join the discussion.
00:35:56.320 --> 00:36:01.880
Subscribe at the Discord or at Patreon or
SubscribeStar and you can listen early and ad-free.
00:36:01.880 --> 00:36:06.360
Thank you for listening. Until next
time, here's a quote from Learned Hand:
00:36:06.360 --> 00:36:14.600
"Right knows no boundaries and justice no frontiers;
the brotherhood of man is not a domestic institution."
00:36:14.600 --> 00:36:18.640
The Bogosity Podcast is licensed under a Creative
Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives
00:36:18.642 --> 00:36:20.746
4.0 International license.