Apparently the millions Facebook has been spending on advertisements, lobbying, marketing and spamming the Indian government will be for naught. The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) appears poised to ban the practice of zero rating as part of its new net neutrality rules, effectively killing Facebook's controversial Free Basics zero rating program once and for all in the country. According to the Times of India, TRAI is expected to deliver the death blow to Facebook's world-domination ambitions within a week:

"Trai will issue an order to this effect within a week, top sources told TOI. The order is also expected to bar free or subsidised data packages that offer access to only a select services, such as Facebook, Twitter or WhatsApp messenger. "These are discriminatory and are against the concept of digital democracy. We will not allow them," a source said. The regulator's stand will clear the confusion over net neutrality. There were apprehensions over the manner in which free Internet was being offered, after the introduction of some zero-rated platforms with preferential treatment to a few websites for a fee."

India would join Japan, The Netherlands, Chile and Slovenia in banning zero rating entirely, based on the idea that cap exemption gives some companies a leg up, and unfairly distorts the inherently level Internet playing field.

That's something the FCC refused to do here in the States, and as a result we're witnessing telecom carriers rushing toward who can be the most "innovative" in the zero rating space. AT&T and Verizon are now formally charging companies for premium, cap-exempt status, T-Mobile is throttling every shred of video that touches its network to 1.5 Mbps (and lying about it), and Comcast is now exempting its own streaming video service from usage caps, much to the chagrin of smaller streaming competitors. So far, the FCC's response has been to nod dumbly.

In India, Facebook (lead by former FCC boss and neutrality waffler Kevin Martin), has been engaged in a blistering media and lobbying campaign to convince India that a curated walled garden run by Facebook was a great way to help the nation's poor farmers. Indian activists and critics like Mozilla disagreed, arguing that the company was simply hiding its lust to control emerging ad markets under the banner of altruism, and if Facebook really wanted to help India's poor, it should focus on improving the country's actual Internet infrastructure.

Facebook's initial response was to call critics of the company's program extremists who were hurting the poor (despite many of the critics being local Indian activists who've dedicated a lifetime to that task). When that didn't work, Facebook changed the name of the program, and filled local newspapers with full-page editorials by CEO Mark Zuckerberg declaring the company's sole interest was poor farmers, not cornering developing ad markets. When people didn't buy that, Facebook tried tricking its users (including those in the U.S. and UK) into spamming the Indian government.

It appears to be that last effort that may have pushed TRAI over the edge (you can read TRAI politely trying to ask Facebook (pdf) to prove the 11 million bogus supporters of Free Basics actually exist). Assuming TRAI follows through on reports, Facebook's now forced to do what many critics wanted all along: actually put all of the money spent on lobbying and marketing Free Basics -- into actually helping shore up India's lagging telecom infrastructure.

Isn't politics just great? Politicians aren't exactly known for their honesty on things, often saying things to voters just to get elected. But Hillary Clinton's views on the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement have received quite a lot of scrutiny. After all, while she was at the State Department, she was a strong supporter of the TPP, and so it was a bit of a surprise last October when she came out against it. Of course, the fact that the deal is fairly unpopular with the Democratic Party base probably contributed quite a lot to that decision -- and Clinton's weak attempt at revisionist history to pretend she never really supported it.

But, of course, when you do a pandering flip flop like that just to get votes, you have to remember that plenty of people will see right through it, and some of those people might reveal the strategy. Like, for instance, the head of the US Chamber of Commerce, the world's largest lobbying organization, who is leading the charge in support of the TPP. Its top lobbyist, Tom Donohue, flat out admitted recently that he knows that if she actually got elected, she'll revert back to supporting the TPP, because of course she will:

The Chamber president said he expected Hillary Clinton would ultimately support the TPP if she becomes the Democratic nominee for president and is elected. He argued that she has publicly opposed the deal chiefly because her main challenger, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), has also done so. "If she were to get nominated, if she were to be elected, I have a hunch that what runs in the family is you get a little practical if you ever get the job," he said.

The same report notes that Congress is now likely to wait until after the election, but before the new Congress starts (i.e., the "lame duck" session) to vote to ratify the TPP in order to keep it from impacting the Presidential election:

Donohue also said TPP will not be voted on prior to the election because Senate Republicans do not want to do anything that could jeopardize Republican Senators in close races. But he said he believed there was a 75 percent chance that TPP would get done in the lame-duck session after the election.

This very likely is the strategy that the Chamber has cooked up and which Congress thinks makes sense, but, really, doesn't it just highlight how bad the TPP really is? If Congress can't convince the public that it's worth voting for when everyone's actually watching, then doesn't that suggest a really serious issue with the agreement itself? In many ways, this seems like an extension of the former USTR's defense of the secrecy around the TPP, where he admitted that if the public actually knew what was going into the TPP it would stop it from ever getting approved. So his decision was to hide it. And now, it seems likely that plenty of politicians are basically doing the same -- hide the TPP until the public isn't looking or can't really do anything, and then shove it through.

Since late last week, we've been getting lots of inbound requests and submissions to write about The Fine Brothers, and the claims that they're somehow trying to "control" or "claim ownership" on the concept of "react videos." Almost all of the inbound requests are expecting us to trash the Fine Brothers for this apparent attempt to "own" something that can't be owned, and we're going to disappoint them. Having gone through all of the details, it actually looks like the Fine Brothers were legitimately trying to do something that's actually... kind of cool. Now, before you rip off my head as well, please wait and hear me out. I will say that they could have been a bit more tactful about it, but I don't think they deserve the intense hatred they're getting.

There are lots of details here, but it starts with the Fine Brothers, Benny and Rafi, who have built up a rather impressive empire in creating amusing internet videos. They have a bunch of shows, many of which are crazy popular. Among the most well-known is probably the "Kids React" series, in which they film kids reacting to things (often "old" things that the kids may not be familiar with, frequently pop culture related). Personally, I like the one where kids react to seeing the very first iPod. Warning, if you're older than, like, 10, this video may make you feel really old.

Anyway... this latest mess kicked off with a YouTube video where Benny and Rafi Fine act as if they've just cured cancer or something, they're so excited for what they're putting out into the world -- a way for anyone to "license" their various show "formats," like Kids React: And, right off the bat, I can totally understand why people were at least a little concerned about this. We've all spent enough time dealing with big successful entities using "licensing" to mean "we're going to stop you from doing stuff unless you pay us." And, honestly, the video above does feel a little weird with the two of them acting as if they've just done the most amazing thing in the world for their fans. I think the other problem with the way they announced this is that they've probably been so deep in the Southern California/entertainment world where questions about "licensing formats" for TV shows is something that's understood by everyone, that they just used the same terminology, without realizing how that would play with basically everyone else in the world, especially among their fan base. Again, to most people "licensing" means taking someone else's money and "formats" sounds like they're claiming ownership of any kind of reaction videos.

But, having gone through the video, the details, more details, the FAQs and their hurried attempts to defend themselves, I actually do think they were trying to do something that is kind of cool. But they got seriously tripped up by the way they presented it.

Here's what they probably should have said they were trying to do: "Hey, everyone, we know we've got lots of enthusiastic fans who love our react videos and want to make their own. And now we're going to help you make those videos, help promote them and even help you make some money off of them! Yay! Isn't that exciting?"

Here's what they said instead: "Hey, everyone, we're going to let you license our "React" intellectual property. Also, people who copy our videos are bad people, but now you can do it if you license from us! Isn't that totally exciting?"

Here's what everyone heard: "Hey, everyone, we own "reaction videos" and now if you want to make your own, you have to give us a cut or we'll shut you down, because you're bad! Isn't that exciting?"

The problem was that they focused on the mechanism ("licensing!") rather than the benefits. They've been pretty clear that they're not looking to shut down anyone. And all the claims from people saying that they're claiming "ownership" of reaction videos is wrong. Yes, they've trademarked some stuff, but trademarks are not copyrights or patents. And, yes, while there is trademark abuse, there's no indication that what they're trying to do here is abusive. Actually, it looks like a pretty good idea.

They know that lots of people make similar reaction videos. And a lot of those people are their fans. But rather than shut them down and rather than demand big licensing fees, they created this (somewhat unique) program, where they're giving a license to anyone who wants it, and with that license, you get a variety of benefits, including graphic elements and (importantly) the ability to have the Fine Brothers help promote and monetize your videos. They take a cut (looks like a pretty small percentage actually), but that should be worth it for many people, who probably wouldn't have many opportunities to monetize the videos by themselves.

So, rather than use intellectual property to limit people (especially fans), this effort looks like it's designed to do the opposite. It's offering ways for fans who make their own videos to be considered "official" videos. Imagine, for example, if LucasFilm did the same thing, giving a sort of stamp of approval for people making fan Star Wars films -- and would even let them release them, just as long as LucasFilm got a small cut? That would be kind of cool.

Now, there is some, potentially valid, concern that the Fine Brothers have attempted to trademark some of the names of their shows, and those trademarks could potentially be abused. Additionally, the whole "people are stealing our formats!" claim in the video above just comes across as silly. Finally, there are at least some examples of absolutely stupid takedowns that may have been made by the Fine Brothers or by people working for them. And those are all certainly issues to be concerned about -- and the Fine Brothers should have perhaps realized that those issues were going to come up, especially the way they presented this.

But, going back to the actual licensing program, it's not that crazy by itself. A trademark is pretty limited in what it can prevent here, and it really doesn't look like they're trying to take down generic reaction videos -- and the fact that they've publicly insisted they're not intending to do so would clearly hurt any actual attempt to do so later. The takedown pointed out above was stupid, and pretty clearly fair use, but was using the Fine Brothers' original work (it was a video of him reacting to one of their Kids React videos). Again, it was a really really dumb takedown that they shouldn't have done, but is a separate issue from this licensing program for people creating something different entirely.

Similarly, a lot of the criticism is that there's nothing special or unique in "reaction videos" and that plenty of others have done them, even predating the Fine Brothers. That's true -- and this is where the misunderstanding of "format" outside of the cozy Southern California entertainment world comes in. What they're talking about is building off of the larger reputation associated with the shows themselves -- something the Fine Brothers actually did build up beyond just generic reaction videos -- including a general setup and script for how each of the videos goes along with the graphical elements that accompany the shows. Most other reaction videos don't follow that same format -- with multiple people looking at a laptop or a piece of technology, with the quick cuts between different folks, and the captions and explanation bubbles and whatnot. I'm not saying any of that is brilliant, but it is the kind of thing that, when packaged together, could certainly be a valid "format" for a show.

Again, if you separate it out, overall, this actually looks like a pretty cool idea for how an entertainment brand could (and probably should!) embrace fan culture and fans trying to build on their work. But, it was presented slightly awkwardly, with a focus on terminology not well understood outside of the entertainment business, and in a world where people are (so rightfully!) concerned about abusing intellectual property. And, the fact that the Fine Brothers have apparently done some stupid takedowns doesn't help at all. Mix in a bit of Reddit mob behavior and you have a recipe for a massive overreaction.

Back in 2013, not long after Aaron Swartz's tragic suicide, reporter Kevin Poulsen (who had also worked with Swartz on what became SecureDrop, the system for whistleblowers to anonymously submit documents to journalists) submitted a Freedom of Information Act with the Department of Homeland Security about what info it had on Swartz. There were some legal fights about it, but eventually DHS was forced to release the documents, which now reside at a site set up by Poulsen called SwartzFiles.com. These documents revealed things like the government's weird infatuation with the Guerrilla Open Access Manifesto, that many believe was written (at least in part) by Swartz (there's at least some dispute over this).

Meanwhile, Jason Leopold, who uses FOIA requests so frequently and so effectively that the DOJ once labeled him a "FOIA Terrorist," submitted a similar request with the Justice Department -- specifically targeting the US Attorney's Office in Massachusetts -- which is the office out of which Swartz's case was prosecuted. Obviously, they have plenty of such documents. In fact, in Poulsen's DHS Swartz files there are emails between DHS and DOJ folks. But, an astounding three years and 11 days after Leopold submitted his FOIA request, the DOJ has told him it has no responsive documents. That's obviously bullshit. There's simply no way that the office that was prosecuting Swartz has no responsive documents on the case.

And, of course, perhaps the worst FOIA requester to give a bogus answer to is Jason Leopold. Not only is he one of the most persistent FOIA filers, he also is absolutely willing to file FOIA lawsuits when the government tries to deny him what he wants. As a recent profile noted, he's filed more FOIA lawsuits by himself than almost all other news organizations combined. And it seems quite likely that the DOJ just convinced him to file another such lawsuit.

Keeping tabs on your network can help keep your important and personal information secure. For $29, Glasswire Pro for PC helps to visualize your past and current network traffic to help you better understand what is going on in the background. It alerts you to suspicious activity, allows you to block access by specific programs with its firewall, and uses limited resources so it won't slow down your computer. The tools allow you to monitor specific applications and protocols, and the Pro version lets you monitor up to 3 computers.

Note: The Techdirt Deals Store is powered and curated by StackCommerce. A portion of all sales from Techdirt Deals helps support Techdirt. The products featured do not reflect endorsements by our editorial team.

Apparently two French Parliament Members are on a mission to ban linking to websites, unless you first have permission. In short, they're looking to undermine one of the key features of the internet itself.

The idea was proposed but rejected by the Legislative Commission, but it is brought back again. Socialist Karine Berger and Valérie Rabault once again tabled their Amendment #843 to Axelle Lemaire’s Bill for a Digital Republic, which would actually prohibit by default a large quantity of hyperlinks in France.

This device aims at amending the Law for Confidence in the Digital Economy and hold ISP and hosts criminally responsible as soon as they “allow public access to works or objects protected by the copyright code, including through automated means.”

The amendment states “users are required to obtain authorization from concerned rights holders”. The two MPs demand that “such authorization covers actions by users of such services when transmitting to the said users the protected works or objects, in order to allow use as stated in the fist paragraph inasmuch as such users are not acting on professional purposes”.

Now, it's fairly obvious that you're dealing with two politicians who think they're somehow proposing a solution to "piracy" on the internet. But it's really yet another attempt at punishing Google. Similar to efforts in Germany, Spain and even the European Parliament, very, very shortsighted Google haters think that a way to "punish" Google is to make it pay money to sites that it links to (mainly when it comes to news aggregation). The two French politicians admit flat out that they're trying to help copyright maximalists:

The amendment is intended to “protect the creation of authors and define the scope of their rights on hyperlinks”, according to the two MPS’ rationale. “The amendment aims at reinstating protection on these hyperlinks, in favour of the authors and rights holders of the links’ target content.”

But linking isn't and should never be infringement. It's a reference and it takes you to the original content, which is beneficial. And yet, of course, it all comes back to politicians thinking that just because Google is successful while linking to others' content, Google must be somehow bad.

“Just look at Google’s referencing procedures: they are based on hyperlinks, and links that lead to copyright-protected works on their publishing site are precisely what allows Google to create any added value whatsoever”, said MP Karine Berger in her plea for the amendment.

“In other words, some commercial Internet operators benefit from the value of some copyright-protected cultural goods and services without ever paying for using them. The amendment, by raising the question as to whom is responsible for collecting value through hyperlinks, aims at overturning jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is a paramount legal and economic issue.”

Yes, Google creates value for itself in linking to websites. It also creates value for users. And for the websites it links to. That's why there's a massive search engine optimization business in which sites purposely try to get ranked better on Google, because sites that are linked from Google get tremendous benefit out of it.

I have a hard time understanding any kind of logic wherein you have a setup in which everyone basically benefits... and a politician still wants to come in and complain because one of the parties in the setup is doing well.

Apparently, the only way to stop terrorists from hating us for our freedom is to strip away those offensive freedoms.

Erik Barnett, the DHS's attache to the European Union, pitched some freedom-stripping ideas to a presumably more receptive audience via an article for a French policy magazine. Leveraging both the recent Paris attacks and the omnipresent law enforcement excuse for any bad idea -- child porn -- Barnett suggested victory in the War on Terror can be achieved by stripping internet users of their anonymity. You know, all of them, not just the terrorists.

After a short anecdote about a successful child porn prosecution in Europe. Barnett gets straight to the point. Here's Kieren McCarthy of The Register.

Before we have an opportunity to celebrate, however, Barnett jumps straight to terrorism. "How much of the potential jihadists' data should intelligence agencies or law enforcement be able to examine to protect citizenry from terrorist attack?", he poses. The answer, of course, is everything.

Then the pitch: "As the use of technology by human beings grows and we look at ethical and philosophical questions surrounding ownership of data and privacy interests, we must start to ask how much of the user's data is fair game for law enforcement to protect children from sexual abuse?"

In short, if you value internet-related freedoms, you're basically supporting terrorism and child porn. No person -- especially no legislator -- would want to be seen as valuing personal freedoms over the good of the nation's infrastructure/children. And, because terrible ideas must be buttressed by terrible analogies, Barnett theorizes that the internet is basically a car.

"When a person drives a car on a highway, he or she agrees to display a license plate. The license plate's identifiers are ignored most of the time by law enforcement [unless] the car is involved in a legal infraction or otherwise becomes a matter of public interest. Similarly, should not every individual be required to display a 'license plate' on the digital super-highway?"

To use the Fourth Amendment for a moment, a lowered expectation of privacy is in play when operating a vehicle on public roads. However, the Fourth Amendment affords a great deal of privacy to the interior of people's homes. Because the government (in most cases) does not provide internet access, it has no basis to demand ongoing access to citizens' internet activities. It may acquire this information (along with subscriber info) using search warrants and subpoenas during the course of investigations, but it cannot demand (or at least shouldn't) -- for national security reasons or otherwise -- that every internet user be immediately identifiable.

Discussions of requiring a license for internet usage have been raised previously but rarely go anywhere. To do so is to start heading down the path to totalitarianism. Unfortunately, being in a constant state of war against an ambiguous foe often results in legislators and government officials declaring their interest in seeing this path not only surveyed, but the first layer of asphalt applied.

Barnett is one of this number, and he wants a strawman to serve as construction foreman.

"Social media is used to generate support for terrorist groups ... How appropriate is the law enforcement engagement of the social media companies to reveal digital fingerprints of these extremist groups? Who determines the level of 'extremism' of a group? Few would disagree that law enforcement and intelligence services should have the ability..."

Actually, lots of people would disagree, starting with many citizens and running all the way up to their service providers. On top of that, the nation's courts would find the institution of a law that strips the anonymity of internet users to be unconstitutional, so that's another hurdle Barnett and like-minded officials would not be able to clear, no matter their stated justification.

The way things are going, pretty soon FBI Director James Comey is going to be out there alone, flipping off light switches and blowing out candles, all the while cursing the going darkness.

A new report by Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society debunks law enforcement's fearful statements about encroaching darkness. (h/t New York Times) As the report points out, there may be some pockets that are darker than others, but the forward march of technology means other areas are brighter than they've ever been. In particular, the growing Internet of Things is pretty much just the Internet of Confidential Informants.

Three trends in particular facilitate government access. First, many companies’ business models rely on access to user data. Second, products are increasingly being offered as services, and architectures have become more centralized through cloud computing and data centers. A service, which entails an ongoing relationship between vendor and user, lends itself much more to monitoring and control than a product, where a technology is purchased once and then used without further vendor interaction. Finally, the Internet of Things promises a new frontier for networking objects, machines, and environments in ways that we just beginning to understand. When, say, a television has a microphone and a network connection, and is reprogrammable by its vendor, it could be used to listen in to one side of a telephone conversation taking place in its room – no matter how encrypted the telephone service itself might be. These forces are on a trajectory towards a future with more opportunities for surveillance.

On top of the additional opportunities for surveillance, there's encryption itself. The best friend of Public Enemies #1 -- whatever is far from the insurmountable obstacle Comey and others have presented it as. While some companies are offering encryption by default and others are specializing in secure communications apps and tools, this is still mostly in service to niche markets.

[C]ompanies typically wish to have unencumbered access to user data – with privacy assured through either restricting dissemination of identifiable customer information outside the boundaries of the company (and of governments, should they lawfully request the data). Implementing end-to-end encryption by default for all, or even most, user data streams would conflict with the advertising model and presumably curtail revenues.

Even Apple and Google -- the two companies that added encryption-by-default to their devices -- aren't interested in encrypting everything.

Google offers a number of features in its web-based services that require access to plaintext data, including full text search of documents and files stored in the cloud. In order for such features to work, Google must have access to the plaintext. While Apple says that it encrypts communications end-to-end in some apps it develops, the encryption does not extend to all of its services. This includes, in particular, the iCloud backup service, which conveniently enables users to recover their data from Apple servers. iCloud is enabled by default on Apple devices. Although Apple does encrypt iCloud backups, it holds the keys so that users who have lost everything are not left without recourse. So while the data may be protected from outside attackers, it is still capable of being decrypted by Apple.

In short, far more surveillance doors have been opened in the past decade than have been closed. As the authors point out, smart devices and online services have implemented voice commands, giving them the capability to record conversations far more private than those that might take place over other encrypted channels. As a case in point, the report notes the FBI exploited in-car microphones more than a decade ago, using a luxury auto "concierge" service to eavesdrop on conversations between organized crime members.

They also point out that encryption isn't always surveillance-proof. NSA officials have encouraged the use of encryption -- not just because it protects ordinary citizens from attacks, but also because it can crack some of it and grab tons of metadata no matter what form is being used. Not only that, but officials have admitted that the use of encryption "lights up" potential surveillance targets, making its haystack trawling much more efficient.

Comey is the odd man out here, abandoned by the NSA, administration and, with few exceptions, other law enforcement agencies. The solution isn't bans or backdoors. The solution is the exploitation of every new attack vector willingly created by social media apps, smart devices and the general interconnectedness of the world wide web. If he persists in this fashion, it won't be too long before he's considered no more credible than the ranting doomsayers who prowl city streets and subway platforms.

And let's not forget law enforcement agencies solved crimes and captured criminals for over two hundred years in this country -- and never found the lack of access to smartphone contents to be a hindrance.

For many, many years, the big German music performance rights organization GEMA has been at war with YouTube over what rates YouTube must pay for any streamed music. It started with GEMA more or less arguing that a stream on YouTube was effectively the same as a purchased download on iTunes, and that it should get $0.17 per stream (yes, per stream). For anyone who understands even basic economics you'd recognize that's not even remotely in the realm of reality. The battle has gone on ever since, and unlike basically every other country in the world GEMA has refused to budge. Because of this YouTube has blocked most major label music from its service in Germany, while GEMA has filed a variety of lawsuits against YouTube in the country arguing that YouTube is somehow responsible for what YouTube users upload.

In the latest round, YouTube scored a victory as a court rightly found that YouTube is a neutral platform and not liable for a user's uploads. According to David Meyer at Fortune:

On Thursday, the higher regional court of Munich rejected GEMA’s claim for damages to the tune of around €1.6 million ($1.75 million). If you’re wondering, that figure represents royalties for 1,000 music videos chosen as examples, at a rate of 0.375 euro cents per view. The court upheld a judgement by the lower regional court in Munich, which said YouTube is just a host for uploaded video.

Meyer also notes that GEMA will likely appeal, so it's not over yet. He also notes, of course, that the rate demanded, while still insane, is at least lower than what GEMA was originally asking for.

This week, one of the stories that got the most response was the extreme claims by the IAB chief that using an adblocker means you hate free speech. One anonymous commenter took first place for insightful with a simple explanation of this common fallacy:

Like many people who wish to impose their views on others, he is confusing free speech with other people freedom to ignore his speech. Free speech rights do not guarantee an audience, let alone permit someone to force an audience to listen to them.

In second place, we've got a comment from TechDescartes which examines a particular statement from Kuwait regarding its mandatory DNA database:

Yet

The DNA will not be used for medical purposes, such as checking for genetic markers of disease, which will avoid issues of whether people should be told about their predisposition to possibly serious illnesses. Nor will the DNA database be used for "lineage or genealogical reasons."

Followed by the unwritten word "yet": "It won't be used for these purposes...yet."

For editor's choice on the insightful side, we start out with an anonymous response to the senators complaining about the FCC's 25 Mbps broadband standard on the basis that nobody could need that much:

I like that excuse of ever possibly need. That is something that could easily be turned right back around. Why do they need $174,000 salaries? $50,000 is more then they will ever need.

Next, we've got TKnarr with some musings on reforming the adversarial justice system:

Thought: apply an old solution. Force the state governments to fund 2 offices for prosecution and defense. An accused who cannot afford an attorney gets to pick which office will handle his defense, with the other office handling the prosecution (if the accused can afford his own attorney, the state can assign prosecution to whichever office they want). Any crossing-over between the offices during a case would result in a mandatory dismissal with prejudice of all charges. The problem should solve itself after that.

Over on the funny side, we start out with this year's perennial funny story: the monkey selfie copyright fight, which the monkey recently lost on account of being a monkey. Capt ICE Enforcer declared this a travesty of the highest order:

This is absolutely horrible. Now monkeys will not have any incentive to create masterful artworks. It was bad enough that the life of a monkey is usually less than 20 years. Which means that a monkey would only get 90 years max for copyright protections. If I was a monkey, I would go on strike. They should be compensated for all their hard work writing books, singing hit songs, and creating masterful artwork thru the use of brush and photograph. We are about to experience a new dark age.

In second place, we've got yet another anonymous comment, again in response to those broadband-fearing senators:

While we're at it, what's up with phone numbers that are 10 digits long?

PEnnslyvania 6-5000!

For editor's choice on the funny side, we start by returning to the IAB chief's anti-adblocker speech, where one anonymous commenter suggested adding an audiovisual component:

I think it would be poetic if his speech were constantly interrupted by random loud invasive ads projected on the wall behind him.

Finally, we've got Crazy Hong Kong Monkey with a response to the unfolding legal fight over the apathetic honey bear:

I guess "Honey Badger Does Care"

That's all for this week, folks!