#ftc violations

[starchipuppy]

lil update for those who don't use twitter and only know what's going on from those who are jumping ship:

elon just made a new rule that is LITERALLY AN FTC VIOLATION

good luck enforcing this in the EU, dipshit!

[omside]

I’m downloading genshin impact on my desktop let’s see if she’s gonna make it into my hyperfixation rotation

[jocktrolls]

taps mic

using flowery or euphemistic language to portray a message that is substantively sexual and contexually inappropriate does not make you seem polite

it just makes you look like a tool ontop of being sexually inappropriate

[sexhaver]

the craziest part about Twitter imploding has been the mindboggling speed that it's happening at. i hate Elon as much as the next guy, but a few weeks ago i was still telling myself that like. okay, sure, he's an idiot, but it's not like the CEO personally has his hands on every aspect of the business, right? he might kill Twitter eventually, but it'll be a death by a thousand cuts as he slowly introduces useless and hated new features. he would have to actively TRY to kill the company as soon as he takes over to truly do something disastrous.

and then within 12 hours of the deal going through he's fired half the company and a few days later he's down to like 15% of the original workforce, none of which know how to do things like "reboot the servers" or "send out paychecks" or "not be in flagrant violation of legally binding federal agreements with the FTC". fucking incredible. this is like watching your drunk cousin light a firecracker at your 4th of July cookout, and you're worried he's gonna try to throw it and might fuck up by holding onto it too long and blowing his hand off, but before you can say anything, he swallows it instead

[robertreich]

How the Corporate Takeover of American Politics Began

The corporate takeover of American politics started with a man and a memo you've probably never heard of.

In 1971, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce asked Lewis Powell, a corporate attorney who would go on to become a Supreme Court justice, to draft a memo on the state of the country.

Powell’s memo argued that the American economic system was “under broad attack” from consumer, labor, and environmental groups.

In reality, these groups were doing nothing more than enforcing the implicit social contract that had emerged at the end of the Second World War. They wanted to ensure corporations were responsive to all their stakeholders — workers, consumers, and the environment — not just their shareholders.

But Powell and the Chamber saw it differently. In his memo, Powell urged businesses to mobilize for political combat, and stressed that the critical ingredients for success were joint organizing and funding.

The Chamber distributed the memo to leading CEOs, large businesses, and trade associations — hoping to persuade them that Big Business could dominate American politics in ways not seen since the Gilded Age.

It worked.

The Chamber’s call for a business crusade birthed a new corporate-political industry practically overnight. Tens of thousands of corporate lobbyists and political operatives descended on Washington and state capitals across the country.

I should know — I saw it happen with my own eyes.

In 1976, I worked at the Federal Trade Commission. Jimmy Carter had appointed consumer advocates to battle big corporations that for years had been deluding or injuring consumers.

Yet almost everything we initiated at the FTC was met by unexpectedly fierce political resistance from Congress. At one point, when we began examining advertising directed at children, Congress stopped funding the agency altogether, shutting it down for weeks.

I was dumbfounded. What had happened?

In three words, The Powell Memo.

Lobbyists and their allies in Congress, and eventually the Reagan administration, worked to defang agencies like the FTC — and to staff them with officials who would overlook corporate misbehavior.

Their influence led the FTC to stop seriously enforcing antitrust laws — among other things — allowing massive corporations to merge and concentrate their power even further.

Washington was transformed from a sleepy government town into a glittering center of corporate America — replete with elegant office buildings, fancy restaurants, and five-star hotels.

Meanwhile, Justice Lewis Powell used the Court to chip away at restrictions on corporate power in politics. His opinions in the 1970s and 80s laid the foundation for corporations to claim free speech rights in the form of financial contributions to political campaigns.

Put another way — without Lewis Powell, there would probably be no Citizens United — the case that threw out limits on corporate campaign spending as a violation of the “free speech” of corporations.

These actions have transformed our political system. Corporate money supports platoons of lawyers, often outgunning any state or federal attorneys who dare to stand in their way. Lobbying has become a $3.7 billion dollar industry.

Corporations regularly outspend labor unions and public interest groups during election years. And too many politicians in Washington represent the interests of corporations — not their constituents. As a result, corporate taxes have been cut, loopholes widened, and regulations gutted.

Corporate consolidation has also given companies unprecedented market power, allowing them to raise prices on everything from baby formula to gasoline. Their profits have jumped into the stratosphere — the highest in 70 years.

But despite the success of the Powell Memo, Big Business has not yet won. The people are beginning to fight back.

First, antitrust is making a comeback. Both at the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department we’re seeing a new willingness to take on corporate power.

Second, working people are standing up. Across the country workers are unionizing at a faster rate than we’ve seen in decades — including at some of the biggest corporations in the world — and they’re winning.

Third, campaign finance reform is within reach. Millions of Americans are intent on limiting corporate money in politics – and politicians are starting to listen.

All of these tell me that now is our best opportunity in decades to take on corporate power — at the ballot box, in the workplace, and in Washington.

Let’s get it done.

[pancakeke]

why won't twitter let me take a screenshot of this help page that explains how they violated the law and had to pay FTC fines because they served users targeted ads using phone numbers and emails provided to the site only for the purpose of account security. huh.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Amazon and Apple have an illegal price-fixing conspiracy

A class action law firm has filed a suit against Apple and Amazon, accusing the companies of price-fixing Ios devices through an agreement that blocks third-party sellers from Amazon unless they’re authorized by Apple. The suit should be a slam-dunk — but even more, the conduct it accuses Apple and Amazon of should never have been permitted in the first place.

https://www.hbsslaw.com/press/apple-amazon-price-fixing/antitrust-lawsuit-says-apple-and-amazon-colluded-to-raise-iphone-ipad-prices

40 years ago, antitrust law underwent a revolution. The pro-monopoly “scholars” of the Chicago School of Economics, led by the Nixonite criminal Robert Bork, argued that antitrust enforcement should limit itself to punishing companies that used market power to raise prices.

Proponents of this “consumer welfare” standard claimed that they just wanted to bring some “objectivity” to the question of monopoly. They said that asking the courts to tame corporate power led to an inconsistent, chaotic world where you couldn’t make a commercial plan without the fear that some judge would block it, because it smelled like an antitrust violation.

The pro-monopolists were unabashed about their support for monopolies. Bork and co. claimed that monopolies were “efficient” and could unleash wonders if we’d only let them dominate their markets and end pointless “wasteful competition.” This sentiment is echoed by today’s robber barons — think of Peter Thiel’s “competition is for losers” or Warren Buffett’s unslakable lust for businesses with “wide, sustainable moats.”

But the monopolists claimed that they weren’t in it for themselves. They said that they wanted to rule without challenge on our behalf — that they would lower prices, improve efficiency, and make us all better off. Indeed, they exhorted regulators to go hard after monopolists that raised prices.

This was a smokescreen. The monopolists insisted that appearances were deceptive: just because a company attained a monopoly and raised prices, we shouldn’t assume that the price-rise was due to the monopoly! Maybe the cost of materials or labor went up. Maybe the moon is in Venus?

So, the monopolists said, regulators must ardently pursue monopolistic price hikes, but this was not the same as “price hikes committed by monopolists.” They argued for the use of abstract and complex models to distinguish the two — models that they alone knew how to make and could charge handsomely for. In an absolutely unforeseeable turn of affairs, these models always proved that the price-hiking companies that commissioned them were innocent.

You know Franklin’s maxim, “it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer?” Substitute “monopolist” for “person” and you’ve got the judicial theory of the monopolists. They argued that “good” monopolies were so freaking awesome for all of us that regulators should approach their job with the utmost of care, lest the accidentally squash one of these invaluable monopolies and deprive us all of their genius.

The monopolists were also part of the broader deregulation movement, the Reaganite notion that “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” They advocated for a smaller, weaker DoJ and FTC, stripping them of headcount and capability.

The result is that, 40 years later, even obvious instances of monopolies using their market power to raise prices are ignored by regulators. When Apple and Amazon struck their 2019 bargain to put Apple in charge of who could sell its products on Amazon, it was obvious that Apple was going after discounters.

Three years later, that’s exactly what they’ve done, with the incontrovertible effect that people are paying more for the same goods because of market power — the only thing trustbusters were supposed to prevent.

Despite the massive red flags this conduct threw off, the Trump administration’s monopoly regulators let it commence. In that regard, they were no different from their predecessors all the way back to Reagan, who were so demoralized, underfunded and/or corrupt that they rarely bestirred themselves, even in the face of overwhelming evidence.

The Biden administration’s trustbusters are different. FTC chair Lina Khan, DOJ antitrust chief Jonathan Kanter and White House antitrust czar Tim Wu have made it clear that antitrust is no longer in a coma — it’s awake, it’s back, and it’s pissed:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/08/party-its-1979-og-antitrust-back-baby

But it’s much harder to unwind existing monopolies than it is to prevent them in the first place: “if you wanted to get there, I wouldn’t start from here.” Demonopolizing America is a generation-long project, and in the meantime, companies like Amazon and Apple will get away with murder:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/11/07/random-penguins/#if-you-wanted-to-get-there-i-wouldnt-start-from-here

The Apple-Amazon scam reveals the lie at the core of the “consumer welfare” theory: that companies will use their market power to help their customers, not pad their wallets. We’re told that Apple and Amazon are rivals — they compete for music, video streaming, etc — but there’s one area they absolutely agree on: monopolists should fuck over their workers and customers in every available way, to the greatest extent possible.

Both companies agree that their workers shouldn’t be able to form unions. They agree that new market entrants shouldn’t be able to make compatible products that make it easy for their customers to quit. They believe that they shouldn’t have to internalize the planet-destroying costs of their business. They believe that they should be able to use their platform status to rip off their business customers’ products, clone them, and then relegate the originals to page ten million of their product listings.

Same with Google: Apple and Google are meant to be great rivals, but the single largest deal Google and Apple do every year is the billions that Google pays to Apple to let it monopolize search on Ios and spy on Apple customers. Apple claims it’s different from Google because it has ethical standards that keep it from spying on you, but those ethical standards are for sale for the low cost of $15 billion.

This is why right wing crybabies who wet their pants over “woke” corporations are fucking idiots. Every large corporation agrees on everything that matters: low pay for workers with no labor rights; no monopoly enforcement, no environmental standards and no taxes. Everything else is a rounding error.

Disney putting a gay character in one of its movies doesn’t make it “progressive” unless you think a “progressive” future is one where our lives are still dominated by 150 untouchable billionaires, but we replace half of them with queer people, women, and/or people of color.

Remember: Rupert Murdoch sold Fox to Disney. Either that deal was made possible by a secret, Romeo-and-Juliet style romance between Bob Iger and Murdoch, whose great ideological differences were bridged by cosmic love…or they had the same ideology all along;

https://locusmag.com/2021/07/cory-doctorow-tech-monopolies-and-the-insufficient-necessity-of-interoperability/

“Social justice” isn’t compatible with corporate power. As important as workplace discrimination and media stereotyping are, fixing these without fixing corporate power is not “progressive.” Gay billionaires like Peter Thiel and far-right woman politicians like Katalin Novák don’t represent social progress.

The conservative coalition of bigots and billionaires depends on the latter reliably rooking the former. There is nothing surprising about “woke” companies pouring millions into the election campaigns of “Big Lie” politicians:

https://actionnetwork.org/petitions/exposed-these-companies-are-funding-trumps-insurrectionists

These politicians are Trumpy conspiratorialists second. Their first priority is unlimited corporate power: the power to crush workers, rip off customers, wreck the planet and dismantle all democratically accountable institutions. That’s the same priority as every major corporation. There’s no such thing as a “progressive” multinational.

Globe-spanning, price-gouging corporations want you to believe that inflation was caused by giving workers enough money to survive during the pandemic, not by their price-fixing and decades of offshoring:

https://pluralistic.net/2022/06/01/factories-to-condos-pipeline/#stuff-not-money

Which is why the right can never be “populist.” They can never be on the side of “working class” people, even the white, straight, Christian male working class. Corporate power works solely in service to its shareholders — and the more workers and customers have, the less shareholders have.

That was always the point of neoliberalism: stripping us of economic and social gains of the post-war era and sending us back belowstairs, to tug our forelocks for our social betters:

https://doctorow.medium.com/the-end-of-the-road-to-serfdom-bfad6f3b35a9

Image: Andrés Moreira (modified) https://www.flickr.com/photos/andrix/6373149829/

CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/

[Image ID: An old-timey cash register displaying $999.99. Its makers' mark has been replaced with Apple's 'Think Different' wordmark; one of the decorative arrows has been replaced with Amazon's arrow-tipped 'Smile' logo. A modified version of Monopoly's Rich Uncle Pennybags is popping out of the cash drawer. He wields a scythe and his face is a skull-mask. Perched atop a protrusion on the register is a trustbuster era editorial cartoon image of Roosevelt, swinging his 'big stick.']

[asleepinawell]

you can have unlimited vulnerability stacks checkmarks apparently

meanwhile on twitter

(the comment was not on the tumblr thing, it was on how twitter is doing extremely illegal things and is in violation of an FTC order that they can be sued for)

[trustednewssites]

The Equifax Settlement Is a Cruel Joke – Experts say the FTC dramatically underestimated the public’s anger over repeated privacy violations. The Equifax Settlement Is a Cruel Joke - Experts say the FTC dramatically underestimated the public’s anger over repeated privacy violations.

[attibar]

My mind just got blown way later than it should’ve

“He’s actually The Walls CCC liason”

As dumb as this sounds, I had no idea that The CCC and The Wall actually worked together, like it’s canon. I saw it in fanfics and fanart, but I thought it was just a headcanon. I mean it makes sense considering how the two factions act towards threats. Just holy shit that explains so many things.

- How The Wall got its hands on such advanced technology like laser spears.

- Why Dimitri had Henry thrown into the complex even in routes where he got pardoned for his crimes, The CCC probably wanted Henry contained due to the chaos he causes.

- Why there’s no CCC choice at all in FTC.

- Why The Wall is able to function at all when you think about it. It’s located in Canada, yet it’s chock full of human rights violations, yet is still able to stay open despite this.

- It also explains why some people are in there that don’t seem to belong, like Frosty and Mark Emu. It’s possible that The CCC is using The Wall as a secondary containment facility.

[greyias]

The cursed bird app meltdown continues apace. For those not in the know, if I'm understanding this hour's drama correctly, the muskrat has apparently told his personal lawyer, who somehow is heading the entire company's legal department now(????) that he's "not afraid of the FTC". Further context, all of the people legally responsible for them complying with the FTC agreement resigned overnight. They're apparently in some sort of violation of it right now? I think?

I'm going to ugly laugh if he gets fined not just millions but in the billions at this rate (and maybe even dragged in front of Congress, which apparently is now being murmured in some congressional twitter circles.)

There's a slack channel/conversation by the non-Musk owned legal team (ie: the actual employees on the legal team before this meltdown started) posting reminders to all employees that if they're asked to do anything illegal to call Twitter's internal ethics hotline. Oh, and also the FTC whistleblower hotline. And reminded them about whistleblower protection laws. Totally normal business things.

Yesterday they rolled out a new kind of checkmark so you could tell the difference between actually verified users and people who paid $8 for their checkmark. It was gray. Within like the span of two hours they retracted it. By the evening the $8 bought and paid for "blue check marks" were live. And you've likely seen screenshots of the absolute chaos that is reigning because of that. Including someone impersonating Twitter itself so they can scam the cryptobros out of more of their foolishly parted money. Which yeah, that's pretty on brand at this point. (Although the verified pope argument thread was pretty hilarious while it lasted.)

Meanwhile, I'm miserably considering adding another sideblog to post pictures of Griffin and tea, and maybe my minute-by-minute reactions to the Twitterplosion, because posting normally over there just feels ickier and ickier by the minute. @pirateyeti suggested I call it "Tea Time with Greyias and Griffin", which does have a ring to it.

(Yes, I could post my inane minute-by-minute thoughts here. But then like. I'd have to tag it so you could scroll by the nonsense. And I can't remember to tag things half the time.)

[callmearcturus]

if we successfully complete the Ritual (Sans beating Reigen again), what are you hoping happens?

i'm hoping the FTC announces charges against Elon for violating the consent decree

[darnellclayton]

A perfect storm could take out Twitter in 2023

The rumors of @apple & @google banning Twitter on the @AppStore & @googleplay, respectively, are growing louder.

Twitter would get crushed if this happens.

Elon is also facing a hostile FTC meeting in January.

“This is one of those cases where, if there’s an additional order, there will be personal responsibility for Musk,” Vladeck says. “His neck may be on the chopping block if there’s another consent decree, and there may be personal responsibility for other significant people within the organization.”

The FTC’s treatment of Facebook helps illustrate the danger to Musk and Twitter. In 2019, following a complaint alleging violation of a 2012 order, the agency hit the company with a record $5 billion in fines, and named CEO Mark Zuckerberg personally responsible for compliance and certification of documents under penalty of perjury. Heavy fines could be a major problem for Twitter, which, as part of Elon Musk’s takeover, was loaded with debt.

Also there is the EU issue as well.

Twitter has disbanded its entire Brussels office, according to media reports, raising questions about the social media company’s compliance with new EU laws to control big tech.

I am trying to do everything in my power to prepare for the worst-case scenario—Twitter being crushed by a perfect storm.

Twitter could barely handle a political/legal war with the United States 🇺🇸 or European Union 🇪🇺. But having to battle both plus Apple & Google will result in Twitter becoming 8chan.

[techmaqofficial]

US Said to Probe Allegations TikTok Violated Children's Privacy

US Said to Probe Allegations TikTok Violated Children’s Privacy

[ad_1]

The Federal Trade Commission and the US Justice Department are looking into allegations that popular app TikTok failed to live up to a 2019 agreement aimed at protecting children’s privacy, according to two people interviewed by the agencies.

A staffer in a Massachusetts tech policy group and another source said they took part in separate conference calls with the FTCand Justice…

[mariacallous]

hi boss,

soooo the twitter thing has gone on for a bit, a lot of firing, quitting, more firing, I've seen posts to the effect that Musk has broken EU labor laws/rules idk if thats true or not, I've seen reports that Tesla has lost about 50% of its value since Musk first floated his plan to take over twitter

and I just wanted your take on the whole thing, will twitter go down? will Musk lose everything?

The short answers to your questions are "probably, before too long" and "not really anytime soon barring other situations".

Twitter is definitely going to "collide with Brussels" as I've seen some commentators put it. For all of the European employees he's laid off, I can comfortably say he and his people never thought about any EU employment law and requirements, and so any employees laid off there would be able to pursue legal and other challenges through the EU systems, and until a proper laying off/termination is done, would still be considered employees and entitled to compensation. And he's still facing lawsuits in CA over the improper firing situation there.

Additionally, any payroll issues will add to further complaints and issues for Twitter (of which there is likely to be several all around) because of US and EU pay requirements.

Additionally, the EU has some pretty serious data privacy and information tech regulations, with more on the way, and if they end up running afoul of those regulations, they could be blocked from being used in the EU, and can face serious fines and penalties in addition. And the EU is going to be more than willing to use Twitter as a test case for the new rules coming out.

Additionally, with more disinformation and more bot and crypto and porn usage, they face penalties under any US and EU regulations or statutes *there*, to say nothing of Apple removing/banning Twitter from the app store, in addition to further advertiser exodus.

And then there's the FTC fines for violating the consent order plus any new violations or failures by Twitter.

For the fines and penalties and legal costs alone, we're talking millions of dollars - and likely from both Musk and other executives in addition to the company. And that's not including the other costs (such as additional payouts or compensation ordered by the courts should they rule in favor of twitter employees, which I would imagine they would considering how relatively clear-cut the violations are). If twitter and Musk try to get out of contracts or paying for services, they can be brought to court there too (and there's already indications that that's happening).

Estimates have indicated that Twitter has lost about 60% of its workforce since Musk took over, which is staggering to think about.

in regards to the value of Tesla, its shares have lost about 58% of their value in the past year, and Musk himself has lost about $170 billion, with an almost $9 billion loss yesterday. He had about $340 billion net worth in 2021. Depending on investments and other resources, and other revenue streams and the support of his other investors and the banks, he'll be able to hold out for a while specifically with twitter. If he continues to lose and if Twitter continues to lose money, that may change. And his other companies, of which Tesla and SpaceX are the most profitable and successful, are not super financially secure and reliant on him and Twitter, now (especially when something like 13%/just over $6 billion of the money to buy Twitter came from a margin loan based on Tesla securities, and when another 28%/$13 billion came from debt financing which means twitter has to pay like $1 billion in loans every year, which is a $500 million/year increase from previously. That debt financing is 7 times what were once the projected earnings for Twitter for 2022, by the way).

Twitter will remain, in some form, as long as the servers and code and other systems are still there - whether it loses functionality and has more issues is something else entirely. Elon Musk will continue to be ridiculously wealthy, unless he ends up being like that FTX guy or other cryptonaires and it turns out his wealth was far shakier than it otherwise looked.

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Epson boobytrapped its printers

“Innovation” has become a curseword, thanks to…innovation. Some of the world’s most imaginative, best-funded sociopaths have spent decades innovating ways to fuck you over. While the whole tech sector likes to get in on this game, no one “innovates” like inkjet printer companies.

Printer companies are true fuckery pioneers: the tactical innovations they’ve developed in the war on their customers would make Otto von Bismarck blush.

Selling printers with half-empty ink-cartridges:

https://www.thestar.com/business/personal_finance/spending_saving/2012/08/19/new_printers_may_not_have_full_tank_of_ink.html

Requiring useless, mandatory “calibration tests” that use up all your ink:

https://www.consumerreports.org/printers/the-high-cost-of-wasted-printer-ink/

Or just having printers reject partially full cartridges as empty.

When you’re at war with your customers, you have to anticipate that your rivals will join your customers’ side — not because other businesses are paragons of consumer protection, but because it’s profitable. So printer companies tried to use copyright to block ink refillers:

https://www.eff.org/cases/lexmark-v-static-control-case-archive

Then patent law:

https://www.eff.org/cases/impression-products-inc-v-lexmark-international-inc

When that got stale, they figured out how to put DRM in paper, too:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2022/02/worst-timeline-printer-company-putting-drm-paper-now

If we could harness the creative energy put into turning printer users into ink-stained wretches, we could end the world’s reliance on Russian gas in an instant:

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

Here’s a good one! Epson will brick your printer after you’ve run a certain number of pages, “for your own good.”

https://twitter.com/marktavern/status/1550605262700122112

How does that work? Well, Epson says that it designs its printers with little internal sponges that soak up excess ink and when they become saturated, that ink might run out of the bottom of your printer and stain your furniture.

https://epson.com/Support/wa00369

If this sounds like bullshit to you, that’s because it’s bullshit, as are the claims that excess ink could get into the printer’s electronic circuits and start a fire:

https://fighttorepair.substack.com/p/citing-danger-of-ink-spills-epson

If your printer’s sponges get too full of excess ink and you’re worried about it, you can easily and cheaply install new sponges:

https://youtu.be/EocI_8awj38?t=112

But that would deny Epson a new printer sale, and divert your perfectly good printer from joining the mountains of e-waste that are poisoning the global south, and we couldn’t have that.

https://pluralistic.net/2021/05/26/nixing-the-fix/#r2r

So they’ve rigged their printers’ software so that even if you replace the sponges, the printer can still refuse to print. Replacing or resetting this software requires that you bypass the DRM designed to prevent this, and providing a DRM-defeat tool is a felony punishable by a 5-year sentence and a $500k fine under Section 1201 of the DMCA.

But maybe this is a violation of consumer protection laws. Aaron Perzanowski thinks so, and he’s a law professor. If the FTC were to go after Epson on this, they would be genuine American heroes, celebrated as true guardians of the public interest.

Previously, the FTC resolved this kind of self-bricking fraud by ordering companies to disclose the practice at the time of purchase. This is not good enough.

https://www.perzanow.ski/blog/2016/7/14/ftcs-revolv-investigation

A real remedy — one that would prevent this conduct in future — would be a ban on self-bricking devices altogether, along with immunity from civil and criminal liability for companies and individuals who design defeat devices to un-brick illegally bricked gadgets, under patent, copyright, contract, and all other legal theories.

Image: EFF/Hugh D’Andrade https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/ink-stained-wretches-battle-soul-digital-freedom-taking-place-inside-your-printer

CC BY 3.0 https://www.eff.org/copyright

[Image ID: EFF's printer DRM banner by Hugh D'Andrade, depicting a printer with an anthropomorphic sick face vomiting out four bars of ink.]