Tag Archive for 'wow people are dumb'

Chad Love-Liberman’s Art4Love is a Fraudulent Plagiarism Peddler

In case I haven’t made it clear over the years, I’m not a big fan of the copyright-lawsuit model of enforcing artists’ rights. When somebody decides to be a dick and exploit the free availability of culture in bad faith, I feel like it’s much better to try them in the court of public opinion than in a court of law. So let’s do that to Chad Love-Lieberman.

Art4Love.com seems to have been around since March 2010, according to the first tweet on its Twitter account. It’s a store claiming to sell hand-painted canvas art, founded by Love-Lieberman as some kind of social capitalism thing. I have no idea; it’s a press release.

Art4Love and the related MarkYourSpot.com appear to have been taken down as of this writing. So let’s Streisand Effect this shit.

Yesterday, Digger artist Ursula Vernon posted on her LiveJournal a link to an article about Love-Lieberman and his “artwork”. She found it odd that this piece was attributed to him:

'Naked Mole Rat Dreams' by Ursula Vernon

It is, of course, by Ursula Vernon. And all of the other pieces in the article are by other artists from around the Internet as well.

Unsurprisingly, as uncovered by Tumblr user Kittenball, Art4Love was similarly fraudulent.

Screenshot of Art4Love.com, captured by Daunt


This screenshot shows Art4Love allegedly selling “Honeycomb” by Julie Dillon. They claim that it’s “Liquid Oil on canvas”, and was painted in 2009.

'Honeycomb' by Julie Dillon


This seems odd, considering the fact that Dillon uploaded the piece to deviantART in 2010, under the category of “Digital Art”.

Hilariously, Art4Love was offering the “painting” with a Certificate of Authenticity.

Tumblr user Daunt has many more screenshots and videos related to Art4Love on her website. Many show more examples of misappropriated artwork, being sold as “original” for high prices.

It’s likely that Chad Love-Lieberman took down his network of websites because he doesn’t want this information getting out. This is precisely why it must. The threat of a copyright lawsuit does not protect the rights of artists to attribution and reputation; otherwise this never would have happened. The exposure of such exploitation on a massive scale is the best hope that artists have to be protected from it. Please, Internets: spread the fraud of Chad Love-Lieberman as far and wide as you can. Make his name synonymous with his crimes, so that anyone looking to commit such things in the future will think twice.

To the artists affected: don’t call this man an “art thief”. Art thieves are skilled, savvy professionals who bypass state-of-the-art museum security. Chad Love-Lieberman is just a plagiarist. And a dick.

    Businessweek Says That Refusing To Own a Cellphone So That Nobody Can Call You Isn’t Luddism; Fails to Realize That Only Luddites Make Phone Calls

    Wow, Businessweek has really gone downhill since they were bought by Bloomberg. Actually, it probably started going to crap when they fired most of the talented people back in 2001 (when they were known by the much less awkward-looking moniker BusinessWeek), but I digress.

    Take this article by Joel Stein (mirrored by MSNBC) which asserts that not owning a cellphone is a “power move”, because it “means that the world has to run on your time.” If you don’t have a cellphone, then nobody can call you whenever they want, an occurrence which under all circumstances will cause you to drop everything that you’re doing, right?

    Getting off the mobile grid forces others to wait for you to get in touch with them. Afsheen John Radsan, 47, a professor at William Mitchell College of Law in St. Paul, Minn., was assistant general counsel at the CIA and an attorney at the Justice Dept. All sans cell. He even refused to get an answering machine until his parents installed one at his apartment behind his back. Radsan began his habit of not answering phones when he was a young lawyer at Sullivan & Cromwell. “If you were called on a Friday, it could only be a partner asking you to work over the weekend,” he remembers. “And we had caller ID. So some of the partners would call from an outside phone and say, ‘We got you!’”

    Well, actually, no. This paragraph has demonstrated that it is not, in fact, a violation of general relativity for a human being to ignore a ringing phone. The rest of the article goes on to quote other people who’ve “taken control over their lives” talking about the evils of phone calls, phone calls, phone calls everywhere they go, completely ignoring the fact that cellphones can be set up to do an extraordinary gamut of things, ranging from never ringing or vibrating to sending all incoming calls directly to voicemail, while still retaining the ability to originate outgoing calls. Which, by the way, is a nice thing:

    Hanya Yanagihara, 35, traveled the world as a deputy editor for Condé Nast Traveler without any portable communication device. “In India, even the yak herders and rickshaw drivers have cell phones,” she says. Occasionally, when her plans get canceled, she wishes she had one. A few weeks ago her plane schedule got scrambled and she had to tell an associate, so she borrowed a phone from a stranger on her flight. “They give you a sort of pitying look, and assume you’re lying or hitting on them,” she says of cell-phone lenders. “Then they ask for the number and carefully punch it in. They think you’re calling international. They’re very suspicious.”

    Elena Kostoglodova, a senior instructor in Russian at the University of Colorado at Boulder…[says that] The only time that she was sorry not to have a mobile phone was when a teenager rammed into her car. She had to ask the kid to call the cops.

    The holes in Mr. Stein’s logic aren’t only exemplified by the patent lack of self-control these “control takers” exhibit in not trusting themselves to ignore the damn phone call (save for the aforementioned guy who actually, um, does), nor to the blatant Luddism displayed by these “power brokers” in being unfamiliar with the concept of a “power button”. It’s also illustrated by the fact that only Luddites equate cellphones with making phone calls anymore.

    Yes, phone calls are inconvenient, obtrusive, clumsy, and extremely undesirable under almost all circumstances. That’s why text messages were invented.

    Nobody uses their cellphone to make phone calls anymore. Especially iPhone owners, because they can’t.

    Admittedly, that’s hyperbolic (except for the iPhone part), but any regular cellphone user with half a brain very rarely makes or takes calls. There’s no point. Text messages work fine for 99% of conversations, and they are decidedly not obtrusive or interrupting. Sure, the phone beeps or vibrates at you when you get a new text message, but that doesn’t mean you have to look at or answer it immediately. In fact, the entire point of a text message is asynchronous, non-interrupting communication. This is what contemporary cellphones are built for; the term cellphone is a vestigial misnomer.

    So, no, people who don’t own cellphones are not more in control of themselves, and are most definitely Luddites, in almost every case, especially the ones cited by this poorly-thought out article written by a Luddite.

    But it was syndicated by MSNBC, so what did I expect?

      The FBI Doesn’t Think People Are Allowed To Post Pictures of its Seal on the Internet, So Let’s All Do It

      Wikipedia has an article on the Federal Bureau of Investigation, much like all things that a large amount of people might desire encyclopedic information on. Naturally, because it makes sense to do so, the Wikipedia community put a picture of the FBI’s official seal in the article, just in case, you know, someone might want to know what it looked like.

      So the FBI decided to send the Wikimedia Foundation a letter in which they demanded this image of the seal be removed because apparently there’s some federal law against depicting the seal of a federal agency in 18 U.S.C. § 701. Except that there isn’t.

      Wikimedia’s attorney Mike Godwin (yes, that Godwin) wrote back to the FBI, informing them that:

      As the leading case interpreting Section 701 points out, “The enactment of § 701 was intended to protect the public against the use of a recognizable assertion of authority with the intent to deceive.”…Our inclusion of an image of the FBI seal is in no way any evidence of “intent to deceive,” nor is it an “assertion of authority,” recognizable or otherwise.

      Entertainingly, in support of your argument, you included a version of 701 in which you removed the very phrases that [pertain to deception]. While we appreciate your desire to revise the statute to reflect your expansive vision of it, the fact is that we must work with the actual language of the statute, not the aspirational version of Section 701 that you forwarded to us.

      Long story short, it is perfectly okay to post a picture of the FBI seal on the Internet, as long as you’re not doing it in order to claim that you are the FBI. So I’m going to exercise my right to do so, and I encourage everyone else on the Internet to join me.

      Seriously, doesn’t the FBI have anything better to do?

        Has Anyone Noticed the Fact That the Chinese Government Hacked Into Google and 20 Other Multinational Corporations?


        You’ve probably heard about the fact that Google is un-censoring its Chinese search results, and threatening to leave China if the government doesn’t like that. Everyone and their grandmother is blagging and twattering about whether this makes Google the most saintly Lawful Good level 20 Paladin in the history of the world, or whether they weren’t making money in China and are using this as an excuse to spin that as a positive.

        Never mind that. Look at their press release, which states the reason why they decided to pull out now:

        In mid-December, we detected a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China that resulted in the theft of intellectual property from Google. However, it soon became clear that what at first appeared to be solely a security incident–albeit a significant one–was something quite different.

        First, this attack was not just on Google. As part of our investigation we have discovered that at least twenty other large companies from a wide range of businesses–including the Internet, finance, technology, media and chemical sectors–have been similarly targeted. We are currently in the process of notifying those companies, and we are also working with the relevant U.S. authorities.

        Second, we have evidence to suggest that a primary goal of the attackers was accessing the Gmail accounts of Chinese human rights activists. [Emphasis added]

        Excuse me, but why is nobody talking about the fact that the Chinese government was trying to hack into Google?

        But Zacqary, you have no way of knowing that the Chinese government was responsible for this!

        Is that so, Helvetica Bold 10 Medium Blue? Well, do you have any suggestions for anyone else who would have the desire to spy on human rights activists?

        Well, no, not really…

        See, this is a much bigger story. It’s not about whether Google has grown the first corporate conscience to ever exist in the history of the world. It’s about the fact that the Chinese government is committing acts of information warfare on multinational corporations.

        This is kind of a big deal, guys. Do journalism and shit. Come on. Seriously.

          IEEE’s “Digital Personal Property” Is The Stupidest Idea Anyone Has Ever Had. Ever.

          Magical Unicorn Fantasyland with Rainbow
          So I’m looking through my RSS reader and see this Ars Technica headline: “Goodbye, DRM; hello ‘stealable’ Digital Personal Property.” It was like a fucking trainwreck. I could not just pass by the article. I had to read it.

          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.