Any time you try to send an email from Yahoo Mail with the text string “occupywallst.org” in it, it will be blocked from being sent due to “suspicious activity”.

What.

I first heard about this from this post, and as you can see in the video, I can confirm that it is, indeed, happening. David, our Chief Operating Plankhead, also confirms that this is happening from his Yahoo account.

UPDATE: Another good example courtesy of slybster. This one’s a bit clearer:

UPDATE 9/20 2:56 PM EST: @Yahoo tweeted:

Thanks to @YahooMail users & @ThinkProgress for catching problem w/ #Occupywallst.org mail. Prob is fixed, but there may be residual delays.

I figured it would end up being explained as a bug. But that’s a really weird bug. I think we need more of an explanation, Yahoo.

Context: Some fellow Plankheads and I are planning to do a live-action version of Brodyquest at Anthrocon in a couple weeks, so I needed to make some Brody masks. Well, I saved it onto my desktop, AND THEN THE ENDING OF BRODYQUEST ACTUALLY HAPPENED.

I have no idea how this completely unrelated PDF file turned into Adrien Brody’s face, but all I know is that I didn’t (intentionally) do it. What the hell.

For anyone who doesn’t understand the context, watch Brodyquest and note what happens at the end:

So, it turns out they created an account for me on Bennington’s employer coordination web-app-system-thing. And lo and behold, I open up the contact info page, and the Title field is already filled out:

Title:

Now, on the one hand, yes, of course, why shouldn’t it say that? That’s my title.

On the other hand, this was typed in by another human being. And not just any human being, but an administrator at an academic institution, in the context of entirely legitimate academic administration.

This is so weird.

First, we have the Kopimi symbol, which is Piratbyrån‘s opposite-of-copyright symbol (i.e. you’re allowed to copy this, in fact please do so). This is then immediately followed by the word “Copyright”. And then to further muck things up, a Creative Commons notice.

What? Cognitive dissonance? In my Internets?

Actually, no. This is all easily explained by the third line: “This notice is not an endorsement of intellectual property law.”

You see, I would love it if I could just slap the Kopimi symbol up there and free everything you see here from the prison of copyright just like that. Unfortunately, that’s not how copyright works.

Wikipedia says “Kopimi is similar to the CC0 license created by Creative Commons.” This is inaccurate, and I’d change it if there were a source for me to cite (Which, since I’ve posted this, now there is, but it would look really bad if I changed it myself, so somebody else should go do it). You see, CC0 contains legal language which, to the extent possible under law, legally releases the work in question into the public domain. Kopimi, on the other hand, is a picture, a word, and a not particularly well-explained website. It is not legally binding.

Perhaps this is exactly what Piratbyrån intended: who cares that it’s not legally binding, because we ignore copyright law anyway. I agree with that sentiment. However, I also acknowledge the reality that not everyone is Piratbyrån. Some people would refuse to make use of a free work if it’s still, legally, under traditional copyright. So I need to add some fine print, for their sake.

Thus, first I add the traditional copyright notice, including the internationally recognized word “Copyright”. This is because, for better or for worse, Plankhead does hold copyright on everything here. I don’t have a choice in the matter. That’s the law.

However, instead of saying All Rights Reserved, the next line is a declaration of Creative Commons licensing. Why the Attribution license, and not the aforementioned CC0? Because plagiarism is bad. If there’s any reason why some kind of copyright-ish law should exist, it would be to protect against that.

Of course, I’m not really sure that the legal system should be used to prevent plagiarism. But, again, the people I’m writing this fine print for care about what’s legal and what’s not, so I might as well throw that in there. If you’re a free-spirited pirate, you’re ignoring everything after the big pyramid with the K, anyway.

Speaking of which, why am I using the Kopimi symbol instead of the perfectly good Creative Commons logos? Because to the people who don’t understand copyright law, and don’t read the fine print, Creative Commons has a branding problem. Says Nina Paley:

“Creative Commons” means “Non-Commercial” to most people. Fighting it is a sisyphean task. So I’m stuck with a branding problem. As long as I use any Creative Commons license, most people will think it prohibits commercial use.

Kopimi, on the other hand, is a brand without connotations to most people. We have the opportunity to establish it as a “do whatever the hell you want” symbol, because that is, in fact, what it is.

So that’s what’s going on with our copyright notice. The legal language is a necessary evil, but unless you’re a lawyer, ignore it all and do whatever you want. As long as you don’t try to pass off something from Plankhead as your own, it’s all good.

That is all.

Consumers hate DRM—all that “phoning home,” the outside control over one’s behavior, the fact that you can’t resell encrypted digital media, the worries about activation servers dying. But what if digital rights management could be turned into “consumer rights management” and people could actually own and fully control the digital content they purchase? That’s the dream of Paul Sweazey, who’s heading up a new study group on “digital personal property” at the IEEE.
[...]
Digital personal property (DPP) is an attempt to make consumers treat digital media like physical objects.…[DPP files] can be freely copied and distributed to anyone, but here’s the trick: anyone who can view your content can also “steal” it irrevocably.

And why would anyone want something like that? Well…

Digital content lends itself easily to the creation of identical copies, so crafting a system in which digital content can be “stolen” is trickier than it might sound. The idea is to make it a “rivalrous good,” one that, after being taken, deprives someone else of something.

Which is exactly what DRM attempts to do; DPP, at its core, amounts to nothing more than changing two letters. Of course, that’s not just because it tries the same thing. It’s also because it fails spectacularly in the exact same way. Much like every DRM system ever, “the scheme will be cracked, and once it is—even if only a few technically-savvy people can do the necessary work—content will flood P2P [file-sharing] networks,” says Ars.

The fact that people who have actual jobs and educations still consider these kinds of ideas is absolutely baffling. I mean, they’re presumably sapient enough to know how to wipe their own asses, so why does the fact that DRM doesn’t work continue to elude their common sense?

Given that digital content just isn’t like physical content, I ask Sweazey why we might want to force it back into that model…His answer is that such freely-copiable [sic] goods breaks the basic business model of human commerce by making goods nonrivalrous; it no longer has aspects of a private good, and this makes it difficult to sell.

You know, Mr. Sweazy, you’re right; freely-copyable goods do break the basic business model of human commerce. That’s certainly a problem. Now, you go run along and play, because us adults have to go back to accepting reality and coming up with a solution that works outside of Magical Unicorn Fantasyland.

Jonathan Lamy, chief spokesperson for the RIAA declared DRM dead, when he was asked about the RIAA’s view on DRM for an upcoming SCMagazine article. “DRM is dead, isn’t it?” Lamy said, referring to the DRM-less iTunes store and other online outfits that now offer music without restrictions.

DRM, which advocates claim is an acronym for “Digital Rights Management,” stands for Digital Rights Manufacturing, and refers to a number of technological methods by which media companies can manufacture legal rights for themselves out of thin air. These synthetic rights allow the gigantic corporation to prevent a legitimate buyer of a song, movie, video game, or other piece of media from doing anything particularly useful with it. It has been used by music distributors throughout the 00s as a sales reducer.

The RIAA, or Retrospectively Irrelevant Association of America, has long championed the use of DRM on music, asserting that la la la la la, I can’t hear you, la la la la la. The sudden change in attitude has so far caused 40 deaths and 900 injuries worldwide related to high-decibel emissions of “wait, what?”

Update: Actually, no, they didn’t. They just said it’s not on iTunes and stuff anymore, so that means something. Oh well.

Just…watch this video…

I am so, sorry, John Graham. I never meant for this to happen. Please forgive me.

PreThinking added their logo to the image, as is common practice in the interblogosphernetwebs, where anyone can take your image and claim it as theirs unless you put some form of identifier on it. For what this man did, the phrase “pre-thinking” is coincidentally appropriate.

[PreThinking via Gizmodo]

Check out the original post for the original ad. In the meantime, I’ll show you my improvements to it: