The Linkielist

Linking ideas with the world

The Linkielist

Cory Doctorow Launches New Fight against Copyrights, Creative Chokepoints, and Big Tech’s ‘Chokepoint Capitalism’

“Creators aren’t getting paid,” says Cory Doctorow. “That’s because powerful corporations have figured out how to create chokepoints — that let them snatch up more of the value generated by creative work before it reaches creative workers.”

But he’s doing something about it.

Doctorow’s teamed up with Melbourne-based law professor Rebecca Giblin, the director of Australia’s Intellectual Property Research Institute, for a new book that first “pulls aside the veil on the tricks Big Tech and Big Content use…” But more importantly, it also presents specific ideas for “how we can recapture creative labor markets to make them fairer and more sustainable.” Their announcement describes the book as “A Big Tech/Big Content disassembly manual,” saying it’s “built around shovel-ready ideas for shattering the chokepoints that squeeze creators and audiences — technical, commercial and legal blueprints for artists, fans, arts organizations, technologists, and governments to fundamentally restructure the broken markets for creative labor.”

Or, as they explain later, “Our main focus is action.” Lawrence Lessig says the authors “offer a range of powerful strategies for fighting back.” Anil Dash described it as “a credible, actionable vision for a better, more collaborative future where artists get their fair due.” And Douglas Rushkoff called the book “an infuriating yet inspiring call to collective action.”

The book is titled “Chokepoint Capitalism: How Big Tech and Big Content Captured Creative Labor Markets and How We’ll Win Them Back.” And at one point their Kickstarter page lays down a thought-provoking central question about ownership. “For 40 years, every question about creators rights had the same answer: moar copyright. How’s that worked out for artists?” And then it features a quote from Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales. “Copyright can’t unrig a rigged market — for that you need worker power, antitrust, and solidarity.”

A Kickstarter campaign to raise $10,000 has already raised $72,171 — in its first five days — from over 1,800 backers. That’s partly because, underscoring one of the book’s points, their Kickstarter campaign is offering “an audiobook Amazon won’t sell.” While Amazon will sell you a hardcover or Kindle edition of the book…. Audible has a hard and fast rule: if you’re a publisher or writer who wants to sell your audiobook on Audible, you have to let it be wrapped in “Digital Rights Management,” aka DRM: digital locks that permanently bind your work to the Audible platform. If a reader decides to leave Audible, DRM stops them taking the books they’ve already bought with them…. Every time Audible sells a book, DRM gives it a little bit more power to shake down authors and publishers. Amazon uses that stolen margin to eliminate competition and lock-in more users, ultimately giving it even more power over the people who actually make and produce books.
The announcement says their book “is about traps like the one Audible lays for writers and readers. We show how Big Tech and Big Content erect chokepoints between creators and audiences, allowing them to lock in artists and producers, eliminate competition, and extract far more than their fair share of revenues from creative labour. No way are we going to let Audible put its locks on our audiobook.

“So we’re kickstarting it instead.”

The announcement notes that Cory Doctorow himself has written dozens of books, “and he won’t allow digital locks on any of them.” And then in 2020, “Cory had an idea: what if he used Kickstarter to pre-sell his next audiobook? It was the most successful audiobook crowdfunding campaign in history.”

So now Cory’s working instead with independent audiobook studio Skyboat Media “to make great editions, which are sold everywhere except Audible (and Apple, which only carries Audible books): Libro.fm, Downpour, Google Play and his own storefront. Cory’s first kickstarter didn’t just smash all audiobook crowdfunding records — it showed publishers and other writers that there were tons of people who cared enough about writers getting paid fairly that they were willing to walk away from Amazon’s golden cage. Now we want to send that message again — this time with a book that takes you behind the curtain to unveil the Machiavellian tactics Amazon and the other big tech and content powerhouses use to lock in users, creators and suppliers, eliminate competition, and extract more than their fair share….

Chokepoint Capitalism is not just a rollicking read, and a delightful listen: it also does good.

Your willingness to break out of the one-click default of buying from the Audible monopoly in support of projects like this sends a clear message to writers, publishers, and policymakers that you have had enough of the unfair treatment of creative workers, and you are demanding change.
Rewards include ebooks, audiobooks, hardcover copies, and even the donation of a copy to your local library. You can also pledge money without claiming a reward, or pledge $1 as a show of support for “a cryptographically signed email thanking you for backing the project. Think of it as a grift-free NFT.”

Craig Newmark says the book documents “the extent to which competition’s been lost throughout the creative industries, and how this pattern threatens every other worker. There is still time to do something about it, but the time to act is now.”

Source: Cory Doctorow Launches New Fight against Copyrights, Creative Chokepoints, and Big Tech’s ‘Chokepoint Capitalism’ – Slashdot

Enjoy Digital Ownership And Public Libraries While You Still Can – the rental model is coming for you

Michael E. Karpeles, Program Lead on OpenLibrary.org at the Internet Archive, spotted an interesting blog post by Michael Kozlowski, the editor-in-chief of Good e-Reader. It concerns Amazon and its audiobook division, Audible:

Amazon owned Audible ceased selling individual audiobooks through their Android app from Google Play a couple of weeks ago. This will prevent anyone from buying audio titles individually. However, Audible still sells subscriptions through the app (…)

Karpeles points out that this is yet another straw in the wind indicating that the ownership of digital goods is being replaced with a rental model. He wrote a post last year exploring the broader implications, using Netflix as an example:

What content landlords like Netflix are trying to do now is eliminate our “purchase” option entirely. Without it, renting become the only option and they are thus free to arbitrarily hike up rental fees , which we have to pay over and over again without us getting any of these aforementioned rights and freedoms. It’s a classic example of getting less for more.

He goes on to underline four extremely serious consequences of this shift. One is the end of “forever access”. If the company adopting the rental model goes out of business, customers lose access to everything they were paying for. With the ownership of goods, even if the supplier goes bankrupt, you still have the product they sold to you.

Secondly, the rental model effectively means the end of the public domain for material offered in that way. In theory, books, music, films and the rest that are under copyright should enter the public domain after a certain time – typically around a century after they first appeared. But when these digital goods are offered using the rental model, they usually come wrapped up in digital locks – digital rights management (DRM) – to prevent people exiting from the rental model by making a personal copy. That means that even if the company offering the digital goods is still around when the copyright expires, this content will remain locked-away even when it enters the public domain because it is illegal under copyright laws like the US DMCA and EU Information Society Directive to circumvent those locks.

Thirdly, Karpeles notes, the rental model means the end of personal digital freedom in this sphere. Since you access everything through the service provider, the latter knows what you are doing with the rented material and when. How much it chooses to spy on you will depend on the company, but you probably won’t know unless you live somewhere like the EU where you can make a request to the company for the personal data that it holds about you.

Finally, and perhaps least obviously, it means the end of the library model that has served us so well for hundreds of years. Increasingly, libraries are unable to buy copies of ebooks outright, but must rent them. This means that they must follow the strict licensing conditions imposed by publishers on how those ebooks are lent out by the library. For example, some publishers license ebooks for a set period of time – typically a year or two – with no guarantee that renewal will be possible at the end of that time. Others have adopted a metered approach that counts how many times an ebook is lent out, and blocks access after a preset number. Karpeles writes:

Looking to the future, as more books become only available for lease as eBooks, I see no clear option which allows libraries to sustainably serve their important roles as reliable, long-term public access repositories of cultural heritage and human knowledge. It used to be the case that a library would purchase a book once and it would serve the public for decades. Instead, now at the end of each year, a library’s eBooks simply vanish unless libraries are able to find enough quarters to re-feed the meter.

The option to own new digital goods or to access the digital holdings of public libraries may not be available much longer – enjoy them while you can.

Source: Enjoy Digital Ownership And Public Libraries While You Still Can | Techdirt

After 95 years, will Disney finally lose copyright to Mickey Mouse? Or will they find another way to extend the right to do nothing but make money for it?

[…] Mickey Mouse will enter the public domain in the year 2024, almost 95 years after his creation on 1 October 1928 – the length of time after which the copyright on an anonymous or pseudo-anonymous body of artistic work expires.

Daniel Mayeda is the ​​associate director of the Documentary Film Legal Clinic at UCLA School of Law, as well as a longtime media and entertainment lawyer. He said the copyright expiration does not come without limitations.

“You can use the Mickey Mouse character as it was originally created to create your own Mickey Mouse stories or stories with this character. But if you do so in a way that people will think of Disney – which is kind of likely because they have been investing in this character for so long – then in theory, Disney could say you violated my trademark.”

[…]

According to the National Museum of American History: “Over the years, Mickey Mouse has gone through several transformations to his physical appearance and personality. In his early years, the impish and mischievous Mickey looked more rat-like, with a long pointy nose, black eyes, a smallish body with spindly legs and a long tail.”

While this first rat-like iteration of Mickey will be stripped of its copyright, Mayeda said Disney retains its copyright on any subsequent variations in other films or artwork until they reach the 95-year mark.

[…]

Honey-loving bear Winnie the Pooh from the Hundred-acre Woods and most of his animal friends entered public domain in January this year and some have wasted no time in capitalizing on the beloved characters.

Actor Ryan Reynolds made a playful nod to the now free-to-use Winnie the Pooh in a Mint Mobile commercial. In the advertisement, Reynolds reads a children’s book about ‘Winnie the Screwed,’ a bear with a costly phone bill.

[…] Pooh and his close pal Piglet are now the stars of Winnie the Pooh: Blood and Honey, a soon-to-be released horror film, written and directed by Rhys Waterfield, that sees the two go on a bloody rampage of killing after being abandoned by their old friend, Christopher Robin.

[…]

“Copyrights are time-limited,” Mayeda said. “Trademarks are not. So Disney could have a trademark essentially in perpetuity, as long as they keep using various things as they’re trademarked, whether they’re words, phrases, characters or whatever.”

Disney may still maintain trademarks on certain catchphrases or signature outfits worn by the characters, such as Pooh’s red shirt, which Waterfield intentionally avoided using in his movie.

[…]

The Walt Disney Company has a long history with US copyright law. Suzanne Wilson, once deputy general counsel for the Walt Disney Company for nearly a decade, now heads the US Copyright Office, underscoring the company’s relationship with the government.

[…]

Source: Disney could soon lose exclusive rights to Mickey Mouse

UK decides AI still cannot patent inventions

A recent IPO consultation found many experts doubted AI was currently able to invent without human assistance.

Current law allowed humans to patent inventions made with AI assistance, the government said, despite “misperceptions” this was not the case.

Last year, the Court of Appeal ruled against Stephen Thaler, who had said his Dabus AI system should be recognised as the inventor in two patent applications, for:

  • a food container
  • a flashing light

The judges sided, by a two-to-one majority, with the IPO, which had told him to list a real person as the inventor.

“Only a person can have rights – a machine cannot,” wrote Lady Justice Laing in her judgement.

“A patent is a statutory right and it can only be granted to a person.”

But the IPO also said it would “need to understand how our IP system should protect AI-devised inventions in the future” and committed to advancing international discussions, with a view to keeping the UK competitive.

In July 2021, in a case also brought by Mr Thaler, an Australian court decided AI systems could be recognised as inventors for patent purposes.

Days earlier, South Africa had issued a similar ruling.

However, the Australian decision was later overturned on appeal.

Many AI systems are trained on large amounts of data copied from the internet.

And, on Tuesday, the IPO also announced plans to change copyright law to allow anyone with lawful access – rather than only those conducting non-commercial research, as now – to do this, to “promote the use of AI technology, and wider ‘data mining’ techniques, for the public good”.

Rights holders will still be able to control and charge for access to their works but no longer charge extra for the ability to mine them.

An increasing number of people are using AI tools such as DALL.E 2 to create images resembling a work of human art.

And Mr Thaler has recently sued the US Copyright Office over its refusal to recognise a software system as the “author” of an image, the Register reported.

Source: UK decides AI still cannot patent inventions – BBC News

Open source Fundamentalists SFC quit GitHub, want you to follow – because GitHub charges for Copilot feature

The Software Freedom Conservancy (SFC), a non-profit focused on free and open source software (FOSS), said it has stopped using Microsoft’s GitHub for project hosting – and is urging other software developers to do the same.

In a blog post on Thursday, Denver Gingerich, SFC FOSS license compliance engineer, and Bradley M. Kuhn, SFC policy fellow, said GitHub has over the past decade come to play a dominant role in FOSS development by building an interface and social features around Git, the widely used open source version control software.

In so doing, they claim, the company has convinced FOSS developers to contribute to the development of a proprietary service that exploits FOSS.

“We are ending all our own uses of GitHub, and announcing a long-term plan to assist FOSS projects to migrate away from GitHub,” said Gingerich and Kuhn.

We will no longer accept new member projects that do not have a long-term plan to migrate away from GitHub

The SFC mostly uses self-hosted Git repositories, they say, but the organization did use GitHub to mirror its repos.

The SFC has added a Give Up on GitHub section to its website and is asking FOSS developers to voluntarily switch to a different code hosting service.

[…]
For the SFC, the break with GitHub was precipitated by the general availability of GitHub Copilot, an AI coding assistant tool. GitHub’s decision to release a for-profit product derived from FOSS code, the SFC said, is “too much to bear.”

Copilot, based on OpenAI’s Codex, suggests code and functions to developers as they’re working. It’s able to do so because it was trained “on natural language text and source code from publicly available sources, including code in public repositories on GitHub,” according to GitHub.

[…]

Gingerich and Kuhn see that as a problem because Microsoft and GitHub have failed to provide answers about the copyright ramifications of training its AI system on public code, about why Copilot was trained on FOSS code but not copyrighted Windows code, and whether the company can specify all the software licenses and copyright holders attached to code used in the training data set.

Kuhn has written previously about his concerns that Copilot’s training may present legal risks and others have raised similar concerns. Last week, Matthew Butterick, a designer, programmer, and attorney, published a blog post stating that he agrees with those who argue that Copilot is an engine for violating open-source licenses.

“Copilot completely severs the connection between its inputs (= code under various open-source licenses) and its outputs (= code algo­rith­mi­cally produced by Copilot),” he wrote. “Thus, after 20+ years, Microsoft has finally produced the very thing it falsely accused open source of being: a black hole of IP rights.”

Such claims have not been settled and likely won’t be until there’s actual litigation and judgment. Other lawyers note that GitHub’s Terms of Service give it the right to use hosted code to improve the service. And certainly legal experts at Microsoft and GitHub believe they’re off the hook for license compliance, which they pass on to those using Copilot to generate code.

[…]

Source: Open source body quits GitHub, urges you to do the same • The Register

Copyright people are the bringers of slow death by horrible boredom. How they must have been pestered as little kids.

Fan’s Rare Recordings Of Lost 1963 Beatles’ Performances Can’t Be Heard, Because … Copyright

There’s a story in the Daily Mail that underlines why it is important for people to make copies. It concerns the re-surfacing of rare recordings of the Beatles:

In the summer of 1963, the BBC began a radio series called Pop Go The Beatles which went out at 5pm on Tuesdays on the Light Programme.

Each show featured the Beatles performing six or seven songs, recorded in advance but as live, in other words with no or minimal post-production.

The BBC had not thought it worth keeping the original recordings, even though they consisted of rarely heard material – mostly covers of old rock ‘n’ roll numbers. Fortunately, a young fan of the Beatles, Margaret Ashworth, used her father’s modified radio connected directly to a reel-to-reel tape recorder to make recordings of the radio shows, which meant they were almost of broadcast quality.

When the recording company EMI was putting together an album of material performed by the Beatles for the BBC, it was able to draw on these high-quality recordings, some of which were much better than the other surviving copies. In this case, it was just chance that Margaret Ashworth had made the tapes. The general message is that people shouldn’t do this, because “copyright”. There are other cases where historic cultural material would have been lost had people not made copies, regardless of what copyright law might say.

Margaret Ashworth thought it would be fun to put out the old programmes she had recorded on a Web site, for free, recreating the weekly schedules she had heard back in the 1960s. So she contacted the BBC for permission, but was told it would “not approve” the upload of her recordings to the Internet. As she writes:

after all these years, with the Beatles still extremely popular, it seems mean-spirited of the BBC not to allow these little time capsules to be broadcast, either by me or by the Corporation. I cannot believe there are copyright issues that cannot be solved.

Readers of this blog probably can.

Source: Fan’s Rare Recordings Of Lost Beatles’ Performances Can’t Be Heard, Because Copyright Ruins Everything | Techdirt

Bungie lawsuit aims to unmask YouTube copyright claim abusers

YouTube’s copyright claim system has been repeatedly abused for bogus takedown requests, and Bungie has had enough. TorrentFreak reports the game studio has sued 10 anonymous people for allegedly leveling false Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) claims against a host of Destiny 2 creators on YouTube, and even Bungie itself. The company said the culprits took advantage of a “hole” in YouTube’s DMCA security that let anyone claim to represent a rights holder, effectively letting “any person, anywhere” misuse the system to suit their own ends.

According to Bungie, the perpetrators created a Gmail account in mid-March that was intended to mimic the developer’s copyright partner CSC. They then issued DMCA takedown notices while falsely claiming to represent Bungie, and even tried to fool creators with another account that insisted the first was fraudulent. YouTube didn’t notice the fake credentials and slapped video producers with copyright strikes, even forcing users to remove videos if they wanted to avoid bans.

YouTube removed the strikes, suspended the Gmail accounts and otherwise let creators recover, but not before Bungie struggled with what it called a “circular loop” of support. The firm said it only broke the cycle by having its Global Finance Director email key Google personnel, and Google still “would not share” info to identify the fraudsters. Bungie hoped a DMCA subpoena and other measures would help identify the attackers and punish them, including damages that could reach $150,000 for each false takedown notice.

[…]

Source: Bungie lawsuit aims to unmask YouTube copyright claim abusers | Engadget

Copyright Is Indispensable For Artists, They Say; But For All Artists, Or Just Certain Kinds?

One of the central “justifications” for copyright is that it is indispensable if creativity is to be viable. Without it, we are assured, artists would starve. This ignores the fact that artists created and thrived for thousands of years before the 1710 Statute of Anne. But leaving that historical detail aside, as well as the larger question of the claimed indispensability of copyright, a separate issue is whether copyright is a good fit for all creativity, or whether it has inherent biases that few like to talk about.

One person who does talk about them is Kevin J. Greene, John J. Schumacher Chair Professor of Law at Southwestern Law School in Los Angeles. In his 2008 paper “‘Copynorms,’ Black Cultural Production, and the Debate Over African-American Reparations” he writes:

To paraphrase Pink Floyd, there’s a dark sarcasm in the stance of the entertainment industry regarding “copynorms” [respect for copyright]. Indeed, the “copynorms” rhetoric the entertainment industry espouses shows particular irony in light of its long history of piracy of the works of African-American artists, such as blues artists and composers.

In another analysis, Greene points out that several aspects of copyright are a poor fit for the way many artists create. For example:

The [US] Copyright Act requires that “a work of authorship must be “fixed in any tangible medium of expression, now known or later developed, from which [it] can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or indirectly with the aid of a machine or device.” Although “race-neutral”, the fixation requirement has not served the ways Black artists create: “a key component of black cultural production is improvisation.” As a result, fixation deeply disadvantages African-American modes of cultural production, which are derived from an oral tradition and communal standards.

The same is true for much creativity outside the Western nations that invented the idea of copyright, and then proceeded to impose its norms on other nations, not least through trade agreements. Greene’s observation suggests that copyright is far from universally applicable, and may just be a reflection of certain cultural and historical biases. When people talk airily about how copyright is needed to support artists, it is important to ask them to specify which artists, and to examine then whether copyright really is such a good fit for their particular kind of creativity.

Source: Copyright Is Indispensable For Artists, They Say; But For All Artists, Or Just Certain Kinds? | Techdirt

The IEA wants to make their data available to the public – now it is on governments of the world’s rich countries to make this happen

To tackle climate change we need good data. This data exists; it is published by the International Energy Agency (IEA). But despite being an institution that is largely publicly funded, most IEA data is locked behind paywalls.

[…]

In 2020 we launched a campaign to unlock this data; we started on Twitter (one example), last year we wrote a detailed article about the problem here on OWID, and our letter in Nature.

[…]

The IEA has just announced that it aims to make all of its data and analysis freely available and open-access. This was put forward by the IEA’s executive director, Fatih Birol, and has been approved by its governing board already.

There is one step left. Next month – on February 2nd and 3rd – the IEA will ask for approval from its member countries. That means it is on the governments of the world’s rich countries to make this happen. If they do not approve it, it would be a missed opportunity to accelerate our action on addressing climate change.

This would be a massive achievement. The benefits of closing the small funding gap that remains greatly outweigh the costs.

There is now large support for the IEA data to be freely available – from researchers to journalists; policymakers to innovators. Many have called for the IEA data to be public.  Many thanks to everyone who has joined in pushing this forwards – below we share the links to several articles, petitions, and open letters that have made this possible.

Open letter to the International Energy Agency and its member countries: please remove paywalls from global energy data and add appropriate open licenses – by Robbie Morrison, Malte Schaefer and the OpenMod community

Energy watchdog urged to give free access to government data – Jillian Ambrose, in The Guardian

Opening up energy data is critical to battling climate change – Christa Hasenkopf, in Devex

Researchers are excited by ‘tantalising’ prospect of open IEA energy data – Joe Lo, in Climate Home

Open petition letter: Free IEA Data – A site by Skander Garroum and Christoph Proeschel on which you can write a letter to your country’s government.

[…]

Source: The IEA wants to make their data available to the public – now it is on governments of the world’s rich countries to make this happen – Our World in Data

Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet

Just as we’re in the midst of a Greenhouse series all about SOPA, copyright industry lobbyists, and former copyright industry lawyers now running the Copyright Office are conspiring to make copyright law worse and to favor Hollywood and give the big giant legacy copyright companies more control and power over the internet.

And, yet, we pay almost no attention to how they massively abuse the power they already have under copyright law to silence people. The latest example is the book review blog, Fantasy Book Critic. I’d link to it, but as I’m writing this all you now see is a message that says “Sorry, the blog at fantasybookcritic.blogspot.com has been removed.”

Why? Because two of the largest publishing companies in the world, Penguin Random House and HarperCollins, hired a ridiculously incompetent service provider called “Link-Busters” which specializes in bullshit automated DMCA takedowns for the publishing industry. Link-Busters’ website looks like basically all of these sketchy, unreliable services, promising to “protect IP” and (even more ridiculously) “turn piracy into profits.”

[…]

On Monday, Link-Busters, on behalf of Penguin Random House and HarperCollins sent over 50 bullshit takedown notices to Google, claiming that various reviews on Fantasy Book Critic were actually infringing copies of the books they were reviewing. Each notice listed many, many blog posts on the site. This is just a small sample of four such notices.

The actual notices do contain some links to websites that appear to have pirated copies of some books available, but also lots of links to Fantasy Book Critic’s reviews. The whole thing just seems incredibly sloppy by Link-Busters. Some of the “allegedly infringing” books in some of these notices didn’t even include links to allegedly infringing pages.

And then some show the only allegedly “infringing” links being… Fantasy Book Critic’s reviews:

That link, which again, does not exist any more, can be seen on the Internet Archive where you see that not only is it clearly a review, and not piracy, but it directly links visitors to places where they can buy the book.

[…]

the real problem here is that there are no consequences whatsoever for Link-Busters or Penguin Random House or HarperCollins. While the DMCA has Section 512(f), which is supposed to punish false notifiers, in practice it is a dead letter. This means, Link-Busters can spam Google with wild abandon with blatantly false DMCA notices and face zero consequences. But, more importantly, publishing giants like Penguin Random House and HarperCollins (which are currently suing libraries for offering lendable ebooks), can get away with this abuse of the law over and over again.

Fantasy Book Critic was reduced to begging on Twitter for Google to look more closely at Link-Busters bogus notifications and to restore their blog. They even contacted Link-Busters which admitted that they fucked up (though, perhaps they should have checked before sending these bogus notices?)

[…]

Source: Totally Bogus DMCA Takedowns From Giant Publishers Completely Nuke Book Review Blog Off The Internet | Techdirt

Snap suing to trademark the word “spectacles” for its smart glasses that no one has ever used or knows much about

Snap is suing the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for rejecting its application to trademark the word “spectacles” for its digital eyewear camera device. But the USPTO has maintained that “spectacles” is a generic term for smart glasses and that Snap’s version “has not acquired distinctiveness,” as required for a trademark.

In its complaint filed Wednesday in US District Court in California, Snap claims that the Spectacles name “evokes an incongruity between an 18th century term for corrective eyewear and Snap’s high-tech 21st century smart glasses. SPECTACLES also is suggestive of the camera’s purpose, to capture and share unusual, notable, or entertaining scenes (i.e., “spectacles”) and while also encouraging users to make ‘spectacles’ of themselves.”

Snap first introduced its camera-equipped Spectacles in 2016 (“a wearable digital video camera housed in a pair of fashionable sunglasses,” according to its complaint), which can take photos and videos while the user wears them and connects with the Snap smartphone app. Despite selling them both online and in pop-up vending machines around the world, the first iteration of Spectacles mostly flopped with consumers. In its 2017 third-quarter earnings report, Snap said it had lost nearly $40 million on some 300,000 unsold Spectacles.

In May 2021, Snap CEO Evan Spiegel showed off an augmented reality version of the Spectacles, which so far are available only to a small group of creators and reviewers chosen by the company. The AR Spectacles aren’t yet available for purchase by the general public.

Snap’s new complaint posits that there’s been enough media coverage of Spectacles, bolstered by some industry awards and its own marketing including social media, to support its claim that consumers associate the word “spectacles” with the Snap brand. Snap first filed a trademark application for Spectacles in September 2016, “for use in connection with wearable computer hardware” and other related uses “among consumer electronics devices and displays.”

During several rounds of back-and-forth with the company since then, the USPTO has maintained that the word “spectacles” appeared to be “generic in connection with the identified goods,” i.e. the camera glasses. Snap continued to appeal the agency’s decision.

In a November 2021 opinion, the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (pdf) upheld the decision, reiterating that the word “spectacles” was a generic term that applied to all smart glasses, not just Snap’s version. Despite the publicity Snap claimed its Spectacles had received from its marketing and social media, the board noted in its opinion that Spectacles’ “social media accounts have an underwhelming number of followers, and the number of followers is surprisingly small,” which didn’t support the company’s argument that there had been a high enough level of consumer exposure to Snap’s Spectacles to claim that consumers associated the word with Snap’s brand.

[…]

Source: Snap suing to trademark the word “spectacles” for its smart glasses

Malaysia in pocket of big business: Passes Bill to Imprison Illegal Streaming (even devices!) for 20 years

Laws that forbid the illegal uploading and downloading of copyrighted content are common around the world but the rise of streaming has sometimes exposed gaps in legislation.

Piracy-equipped Kodi devices, illegal streaming apps, and similar tools have led legal specialists to attempt to apply laws that didn’t envision the technology. In Malaysia, for example, it took a decision by the High Court last May to determine that the sale and distribution of streaming devices configured for piracy purposes does indeed constitute infringement under the Copyright Act.

But Malaysia was far from done. After previously informing the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that the economic harm being caused to broadcasters and rightsholders in the country was a “serious problem”, Malaysia said it had amendments on the table to more directly tackle the illegal uploading, provision, and sharing of access to copyright works.

House of Representatives Passes Copyright Amendment Bill

This week Malaysia’s Dewan Rakyat (House of Representatives) passed the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2021 which, among other things, will more directly address the challenges of illegal streaming.

“Act 332 is amended to ensure copyright laws implemented will provide more efficient and effective protection in line with current demands and to fulfill the needs of the business community and stakeholders,” said Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs Minister Datuk Seri Alexander Nanta Linggi.

The amendments are focused on those involved in the provision or facilitation of illegal streams. The term “streaming technology” is repeatedly referenced and for the purposes of the act this includes computer programs (apps and other software tools), devices (streaming hardware of all kinds) that, in whole or in part, are used to infringe copyright in a protected work.

How the amendments will be used in practice remains to be seen but the scope appears to be intentionally broad and could result in significant punishments for those found to be in breach of the law.

Punishments for Illegal Streaming Facilitators

The first section of the amendment deals with those who “commit or facilitate infringement” of copyright by manufacturing a streaming technology for sale or hire, importing a streaming technology, selling or letting for hire (including offering, exposing or advertising for sale or hire), and/or possessing or distributing a streaming technology in the course of a business.

It expands to include distributing or offering to the public an infringing streaming technology or service other than in the course of a business, to such an extent “as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright.”

Anyone who contravenes these amendments will be guilty of an offense and upon conviction shall be liable to a fine of not less than 10 thousand ringgit (US$2,377) but not more than two hundred thousand ringgit (US$47,545). In addition to the possibility of fines, there are also custodial sentences that could reach a staggering 20 years imprisonment in the most serious of cases.

Those hoping to use a corporate structure as a shield are also put on notice. When any offenses are committed by a corporate body or by a person who is a partner in a firm, everyone from directors to managers will be deemed guilty of the offense and may be charged severally or jointly, unless they can show they had no knowledge and conducted due diligence to prevent the offense.

The details of the amendments can be found here (pdf)

Source: Malaysia Passes Bill to Imprison Illegal Streaming Pirates For Up To 20 Years * TorrentFreak

Considering the broadness of this law, it looks like selling a mobile phone, PC or laptop – which are all capable of streaming illegal content – could become punishable.

The European Commission is making its software open source to benefit society – considering it was paid for by the tax payers it’s the least they could do and should have done this years ago

The European Commission has announced that it’s adopting new rules around open source software which will see it release software under open source licenses. The decision follows a Commission study that found investment in open source software leads on average to four times higher returns. There has also been a push for this type of action from the Public Money, Public Code campaign.

If you’re wondering what sort of code the EC could offer to the world, it gave two examples. First, there’s its eSignature, a set of free standards, tools, and services that can speed up the creation and verification of electronic signatures that are legally valid inside the EU. Another example is LEOS (Legislation Editing Open Software) which is used to draft legal texts.

[…]

Source: The European Commission is making its software open source to benefit society – Neowin

U.S. Indicts Two Men for Running a $20 Million YouTube Content ID Scam – after 4 years of warnings

Two men have been indicted by a grand jury for running a massive YouTube Content ID scam that netted the pair more than $20m. Webster Batista Fernandez and Jose Teran managed to convince a YouTube partner that the pair owned the rights to 50,000+ tracks and then illegally monetized user uploads over a period of four years.

[…]

YouTube previously said that it paid $5.5 billion in ad revenue to rightsholders from content claimed and monetized through Content ID but the system doesn’t always work exactly as planned.

Over the years, countless YouTube users have complained that their videos have been claimed and monetized by entities that apparently have no right to do so but, fearful of what a complaint might do to the status of their accounts, many opted to withdraw from battles they feared they might lose.

[…]

Complaints are not hard to find. Large numbers of YouTube videos uploaded by victims of the scam dating back years litter the platform, while a dedicated Twitter account and a popular hashtag have been complaining about MediaMuv since 2018.

 

Mediamuv
 

As early as 2017, complaints were being made on YouTube/Google’s support forums, with just one receiving more than 150 replies.

“I want to make a claim through this place, since a few days ago a said company called MEDIAMUV IS STEALING CONTENT FROM MY CHANNEL AND FROM OTHER USERS, does anyone know something about said company?” one reads.

“[I] investigated and there is nothing in this respect. I only found a channel saying that several users are being robbed and that when they come to upload their own songs, MEDIAMUV detects the videos as theirs.”

[…]

Source: U.S. Indicts Two Men for Running a $20 Million YouTube Content ID Scam * TorrentFreak

Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer?

One reason why copyright has become so important in the digital age is that it applies to the software that many of us use routinely on our smartphones, tablets and computers. In order to run those programs, you must have a license of some kind (unless the software is in the public domain, which rarely applies to modern code). The need for a license is why we must agree to terms and conditions when we install new software. On Twitter, Alvar C.H. Freude noticed something interesting in the software licence agreement for Capture One: “world-class tools for editing, organizing and working with photos” according to the Danish company that makes it (found via Wolfie Christl). The license begins by warning:

if you do not agree to the terms of this license, you may not install or use the software but should promptly return the software to the place where you obtained it for a refund.

That’s normal enough, and merely reflects the power of copyright holders to impose “take it or leave it” conditions on users. Less common is the following:

Capture One or a third-party designated by Capture One in its sole discretion has the right to verify your compliance with this License at any time upon request including without limitation to request information regarding your installation and/or use of the Software and/or to perform on-site investigations of your installation and use of the Software.

If you use Capture One, you must provide “without limitation access to your premises, IT systems on which the Software is installed”, and “Capture One or an Auditor may decide in their sole discretion to apply software search tools in accordance with audits.”

That is, thanks to copyright, a company is perfectly able to demand the right to access a user’s premises, the computer systems they use, and to run search tools on that system as part of an audit. Although this applies to business premises, there’s no reason a software license could not demand the same right to access somebody’s home. In fact, there are really no limits on what may be required. You’re not obliged to agree to such terms, but most people do, often without even checking the details.

The fact that such requirements are possible shows how far copyright has strayed from the claimed purpose of protecting creators and promoting creativity. Copyright has mutated into a monster because it was never designed to regulate activities, as it does with software, just static objects like books and drawings.

Source: Does Copyright Give Companies The Right To Search Your Home And Computer? | Techdirt

Blizzard started with this with World of Warcraft, allowing itself to search your hard drive and memory. Many games since then have given themselves this ability, which they make use of.

Woman Allegedly Made $57,000 From Unofficial Demon Slayer Cakes

A 34-year-old resident of Tokyo’s Shibuya has been arrested on suspicion of violating Japanese copyright law after selling unlicensed Demon Slayer cakes.

According to Kyodo News, the women sold the cakes through Instagram, with customers submitting their desired images to be turned into frosting, cream, and sugar. The suspect is said to have charged between 13,000 yen ($114) and 15,000 yen ($132) per cake. Since July 2019, it is believed she made over 6,500,000 yen in sales. That’s over $57,000!

It’s a lot of cakes, too.

The Metropolitan Police Department released photos of the criminal cakes in question, which can be seen in the above TBS News clip.

Source: Woman Allegedly Made $57,000 From Unofficial Demon Slayer Cakes

yay well done copyright. not.

Take Two and Rockstar Use DMCA Claims To Remove More GTA Mods

As players continue to criticize the recently released GTA Trilogy remastered collection, Rockstar Games parent company Take-Two Interactive has decided this is the perfect time to use DMCA takedown notices to remove some more GTA mods and fan projects.

On November 11, according to the folks over at the GTA modding site LibertyCity, Take-Two contacted them and used DMCA strikes to remove three different GTA-related mods. The three removed mods are listed below:

  • GTA Advance PC Port Beta 2
  • The Lost and Damned Unlocked for GTA 4
  • GTA IV EFLC The Lost And Damned (65%)

GTA Advance PC Port is a fan-developed project attempting to port the game into the GTA 3 engine. Developed by Digital Eclipse, GTA Advance was only released on the GameBoy Advance in 2004.

The Lost and Damned Unlocked for GTA IV is a mod released in 2009 which lets players swap out the star of GTA IV, Niko Bellic, with the protagonist of the Lost and Damned DLC, biker Johnny Klebitz. It also included some new biker outfits and icons.

Finally, GTA IV EEFLC (65%) isn’t even a mod! It’s just a save file for the game that lets players start from 65% completion. Yes, Take-Two used a DMCA strike against a save file for a game released over a decade ago.

These are just the latest in a growing number of GTA mods Take-Two has gone after and removed using legal DMCA notices. Over the last year, the company has been on a takedown spree, like a GTA character on a rampage. It has also sued fan devs over source code projects and led to some old mods, like GTA Underground, shutting down over fears of more legal and financial trouble.

[…]

Regardless of if these takedowns are evidence of a future GTA IV remaster or not, it still is a frustrating situation for modders and community devs who have spent decades improving, porting, and maintaining the classic GTA games, allowing fans to play them years after Rockstar had moved on. Kotaku spoke to some modders who seemed fed up with Rockstar and many more have moved on to other games from other companies, worried about the potential legal pitfalls for continuing to mod Grand Theft Auto titles.

Source: Take Two and Rockstar Use DMCA Claims To Remove More GTA Mods

NFI decrypts Tesla’s hidden driving data

[…] The Netherlands Forensic Institute (NFI) said it discovered a wealth of information about Tesla’s Autopilot, along with data around speed, accelerator pedal positions, steering wheel angle and more. The findings will allow the government to “request more targeted data” to help determine the cause of accidents, the investigators said.

The researchers already knew that Tesla vehicles encrypt and store accident related data, but not which data and how much. As such, they reverse-engineered the system and succeeded in “obtaining data from the models S, Y, X and 3,” which they described in a paper presented at an accident analysis conference.

[….]

With knowledge of how to decrypt the storage, the NFI carried out tests with a Tesla Model S so it could compare the logs with real-world data. It found that the vehicle logs were “very accurate,” with deviations less than 1 km/h (about 0.6 MPH).

[…]

It used to be possible to extract Autopilot data from Tesla EVs, but it’s now encrypted in recent models, the investigators said. Tesla encrypts data for good reason, they acknowledged, including protecting its own IP from other manufacturers and guarding a driver’s privacy. It also noted that the company does provide specific data to authorities and investigators if requested.

However, the team said that the extra data they extracted would allow for more detailed accident investigations, “especially into the role of driver assistance systems.” It added that it would be ideal to know if other manufacturers stored the same level of detail over long periods of time. “If we would know better which data car manufacturers all store, we can also make more targeted claims through the courts or the Public Prosecution Service,” said NFI investigator Frances Hoogendijk. “And ultimately that serves the interest of finding the truth after an accident.”

Source: The Dutch government claims it can decrypt Tesla’s hidden driving data | Engadget

Protecting your IP this way basically means things like not being able to use the data for legitimate reasons – such as investigating accidents – as well as halting advancements. This whole IP thing has gotten way out of hand to the detriment of the human race!

Also, this sounds like non-GDPR compliant data collection

Giant, free index to world’s research papers released online

In a project that could unlock the world’s research papers for easier computerized analysis, an American technologist has released online a gigantic index of the words and short phrases contained in more than 100 million journal articles — including many paywalled papers.

The catalogue, which was released on 7 October and is free to use, holds tables of more than 355 billion words and sentence fragments listed next to the articles in which they appear. It is an effort to help scientists use software to glean insights from published work even if they have no legal access to the underlying papers, says its creator, Carl Malamud. He released the files under the auspices of Public Resource, a non-profit corporation in Sebastopol, California, that he founded.

[….]

Computer scientists already text mine papers to build databases of genes, drugs and chemicals found in the literature, and to explore papers’ content faster than a human could read. But they often note that publishers ultimately control the speed and scope of their work, and that scientists are restricted to mining only open-access papers, or those articles they (or their institutions) have subscriptions to. Some publishers have said that researchers looking to mine the text of paywalled papers need their authorization.

And although free search engines such as Google Scholar have — with publishers’ agreement — indexed the text of paywalled literature, they only allow users to search with certain types of text queries, and restrict automated searching. That doesn’t allow large-scale computerized analysis using more specialized searches, Malamud says.

[…]

Michael Carroll, a legal researcher at the American University Washington College of Law in Washington DC, says that distributing the index should be legal worldwide because the files do not copy enough of an underlying article to infringe the publisher’s copyright — although laws vary by country. “Copyright does not protect facts and ideas, and these results would be treated as communication of facts derived from the analysis of the copyrighted articles,” he says.

The only legal question, Carroll adds, is whether Malamud’s obtaining and copying of the underlying papers was done without breaching publishers’ terms. Malamud says that he did have to get copies of the 107 million articles referenced in the index to create it; he declined to say how,

 

Source: Giant, free index to world’s research papers released online

It is sad indeed that much research – lots of it probably paid for by tax payers and all of it eventually subsidised by customers of the companies who paid for it – is impossible or very hard for scientists to look up: because of copyright. This is a clear impediment to growth of wealth and knowledge and it’s not very strange to understand why countries like China who don’t allow people to sit on their copyrighted arses but make them innovate for a living are doing much better at growth than the legally quagmired west.

At Amazon, Some Brands Get More Protection From Fakes Than Others

There are two classes of merchant on Amazon.com: those who get special protection from counterfeiters and those who don’t. From a report: The first category includes sellers of some big-name brands, such as Adidas, Apple and even Amazon itself. They benefit from digital fortifications that prevent unauthorized sellers from listing certain products — an iPhone, say, or eero router — for sale. Many lesser-known brands belong to the second group and have no such shield. Fred Ruckel, inventor of a popular cat toy called the Ripple Rug, is one of those sellers. A few months ago, knockoff artists began selling versions of his product, siphoning off tens of thousands of dollars in sales and forcing him to spend weeks trying have the interlopers booted off the site.

Amazon’s marketplace has long been plagued with fakes, a scourge that has made household names like Nike leery of putting their products there. While most items can be uploaded freely to the site, Amazon by 2016 had begun requiring would-be sellers of a select group of products to get permission to list them. The company doesn’t publicize the program, but in the merchant community it has become known as “brand gating.” Of the millions of products sold on Amazon, perhaps thousands are afforded this kind of protection, people who advise sellers say. Most merchants, many of them small businesses, rely on Amazon’s algorithms to ferret out fakes before they appear — an automated process that dedicated scammers have managed to evade.

Source: At Amazon, Some Brands Get More Protection From Fakes Than Others – Slashdot

Google (G00G) Urges EU Judges to Slash ‘Staggering’ $5 Billion Fine

Google called on European Union judges to cut or cancel a “staggering” 4.3 billion euro ($5 billion) antitrust fine because the search giant never intended to harm rivals.

The company “could not have known its conduct was an abuse” when it struck contracts with Android mobile phone makers that required them to take its search and web-browser apps, Google lawyer Genevra Forwood told the EU’s General Court in Luxembourg.

[…]

The European Commission’s lawyer, Anthony Dawes, scoffed at Google’s plea, saying the fine was a mere 4.5% of the company’s revenue in 2017, well below a 10% cap.

[…]

Source: Google (G00G) Urges EU Judges to Slash ‘Staggering’ $5 Billion Fine – Bloomberg

Because Google had never ever heard of Microsoft and the antitrust lawsuits around Internet Explorer? Come on!

Marvel Files Lawsuit to Keep Iron Man, Spider-Man Rights From Creators

The families of iconic Marvel comic book writers and artists Stan Lee, Steve Ditko, Don Heck, Gene Colan, and Don Rico have filed termination of copyright notices on the superheroes they helped create. Marvel—which Disney has owned since 2009—unsurprisingly, disagrees and has filed lawsuits against all five to keep the characters in the Marvel stable and making the company billions.

The Hollywood Reporter broke the news. Without trying to get into too much legalese, creators can file termination of copyright notices to reclaim rights to their work after a set amount of time, with a minimum of 35 years. Marvel’s suits argue that the characters are ineligible for copyright termination because they were made as “work-for-hire”—as in Marvel paid people to create characters for the company, meaning the company owns them outright. According to the report, if the creators’ heirs notices were accepted, Marvel would lose rights to characters including Iron Man, Spider-Man, Hawkeye, Black Widow, Doctor Strange, Falcon, Ant-Man, and more. One caveat is this only matters in the United States. According to THR, even if Marvel loses, Disney can continue making money off the characters everywhere else. If the heirs win, Disney would still share ownership.

Since Marvel has pro-actively sued to keep the copyrights to these characters, I suppose the creators’ claims have some validity to them, but as a layman, the case looks hopeless to me. Not only does the Walt Disney Company have the infinite cash reserves to keep the rights tied up with them for years, but there have been previous cases where Marvel creators have claimed ownership and had to settle. Additionally, the lawyer representing the heirs is Marc Toberoff, who also represented the families of Superman creators Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel when they tried to terminate DC Comics’ rights to the Man of Steel. DC was successfully represented by Dan Petrocelli—and he’s the one who just filed the lawsuits for Marvel.

More likely, the case will ultimately be about paying people some kind of fair compensation for turning Marvel into a billion-dollar company, which Disney has no desire to do (remember, Disney’s reportedly been paying creators a mere $5,000 for work it’s made those billions on). This is unfair, immoral, and purely greedy; the company has more than enough money to make all of these creators rich without coming close to losing a profit. In the best-case scenario, Disney/Marvel will give these folks as little as possible to make these legal annoyances go away early. It won’t be nearly as much as the company could and should give them, but at least it’ll be something.

Source: Marvel Files Lawsuit to Keep Iron Man, Spider-Man Rights From Creators

Even the fact that there is copyright on these characters still after the original creators have died is downright ridiculous

UK appeals court rules AI cannot be listed as a patent inventor

Add the United Kingdom to the list of countries that says an artificial intelligence can’t be legally credited as an inventor. Per the BBC, the UK Court of Appeal recently ruled against Dr. Stephen Thaler in a case involving the country’s Intellectual Property Office. In 2018, Thaler filed two patent applications in which he didn’t list himself as the creator of the inventions mentioned in the documents. Instead, he put down his AI DABUS and said the patent should go to him “by ownership of the creativity machine.”

The Intellectual Property Office told Thaler he had to list a real person on the application. When he didn’t do that, the agency decided he had withdrawn from the process. Thaler took the case to the UK’s High Court. The body ruled against him, leading to the eventual appeal. “Only a person can have rights. A machine cannot,” Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing of the Appeal Court wrote in her judgment. “A patent is a statutory right and it can only be granted to a person.”

Thaler has filed similar legal challenges in other countries, and the results so far have been mixed. In August, a judge in Australia ruled inventions created by an AI can qualify for a patent. However, only earlier this month, US District Judge Leonie M Brinkema upheld a decision by the US Patent and Trademark Office that said “only natural persons may be named as an inventor in a patent application.” Judge Brinkema said there may eventually be a time when AI becomes sophisticated enough to satisfy the accepted definitions of inventorship, but noted, “that time has not yet arrived, and, if it does, it will be up to Congress to decide how, if at all, it wants to expand the scope of patent law.”

Source: UK appeals court rules AI cannot be listed as a patent inventor | Engadget

This is strange as Patents can be granted to companies – which are legally people, but not really, well, people

Ig Nobel Prizes blocked by YouTube takedown over 1914 song snippet – can’t find human to fix the error

YouTube, the Ig Nobel Prizes, and the Year 1914

YouTube’s notorious takedown algorithms are blocking the video of the 2021 Ig Nobel Prize ceremony.

We have so far been unable to find a human at YouTube who can fix that. We recommend that you watch the identical recording on Vimeo.

The Fatal Song

This is a photo of John McCormack, who sang the song “Funiculi, Funicula” in the year 1914, inducing YouTube to block the 2021 Ig Nobel Prize ceremony.

Here’s what triggered this: The ceremony includes bits of a recording (of tenor John McCormack singing “Funiculi, Funicula”) made in the year 1914.

The Corporate Takedown

YouTube’s takedown algorithm claims that the following corporations all own the copyright to that audio recording that was MADE IN THE YEAR 1914: “SME, INgrooves (on behalf of Emerald); Wise Music Group, BMG Rights Management (US), LLC, UMPG Publishing, PEDL, Kobalt Music Publishing, Warner Chappell, Sony ATV Publishing, and 1 Music Rights Societies”

UPDATES: (Sept 19, 2021) There’s an ongoing discussion on Slashdot.(Sept 13, 2021) There’s an ongoing discussion on Hacker News, about this problem.

Source: Improbable Research » Blog Archive

First of all, what is copyright doing protecting anything from 1914? The creator is more than dead and buried and the model of creating once and keeping raking in money is ridiculous anyway.
Second, this shows the power the large copyright holders hold over smaller players – and the Ig Nobel Prizes aren’t exactly a small player! If a big corporation throws a DMCA at you, there’s nothing you can do – you are caught in a Kafka-esque hole with no hope in sight.

Huge GTA San Andreas Mod Because Of Take-Two Harassment

After months of Take-Two Interactive attacking and fighting GTA modders, the folks behind the long-in-development San Andreas mod, GTA Underground, have killed the project and removed it from the web over “increasing hostility” from Take-Two and fears of further legal problems.

Over the last few months, Take-Two Interactive — the parent company of GTA devs Rockstar Games —has gone on a digital murder spree, sending multiple takedown notices to get old 3D-era GTA mods and source ports removed from the internet. The publisher is also suing the creators behind reverse-engineered source ports of Vice City and GTA III. As a result of this hostility, GTA Underground lead developer dkluin wrote in a post yesterday on the GTAForums that they and the other modders working on the project were now “officially ceasing the development” of GTA: Underground.

“Due to the increasing hostility towards the modding community and imminent danger to our mental and financial well-being,” explained dkluin, “We sadly announce that we are officially ceasing the development of GTA: Underground and will be shortly taking all official uploads offline.”

Dkluin also thanked the community for the support they received over the last six years and mentioned all the “incredible work” that went into the mod and the “great times” the team experienced working on it together. A final video, simply named “The End.” was uploaded today on the modding team’s YouTube channel.

GTA Underground is a mod created for GTA San Andreas with the goal of merging all of the previous GTA maps into one mega environment. The mod even aimed to bring other cities from non-GTA games developed by Rockstar into San Andreas, including the cities featured in Bully and Manhunt.

The mod had already faced some problems from Take-Two in July. As result, it was removed from ModDB. It is now removed from all other official sources and sites.

In 2018, Kotaku interviewed dkluin about the mod and all the work going into it. He had started development on it back in 2014, when he was only 14 years old. GTA Underground isn’t a simple copy-and-paste job, instead, the modders added AI and traffic routines to every map, making them fully playable as GTA cities. The team also had plans to add more cities to the game, including their own custom creations.

[…]

Source: Fan Dev Shuts Down Huge GTA San Andreas Mod Because Of Take-Two

Way to piss off your fan base