facility:district court

  • Prison inmates will soon be reading ebooks—but that’s not a good thing — Quartz
    https://qz.com/1399330/prison-inmates-will-soon-be-reading-ebooks-but-thats-not-a-good-thing

    Earlier this month, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections announced that inmates would no longer be able to receive physical books from outside organizations or inmate’s families. Instead, the state’s prison system would be switching to ebooks. These will be available on tablets sold by prison telecommunications giant GTL.

    The book ban was part of an announcement about security measures aimed at limiting contraband flowing into Pennsylvania’s prisons.

    • Je retrouve pas l’annonce il y a quelques jours du changement de prestataire pour la musique dans des prisons ricaines. Avec interdiction pour les détenus d’écouter la musique via un autre prestataire. Et toutes les musiques qu’ils avaient achetées en passant par le prestataire précédent, il me semble qu’elles étaient ainsi perdues.

      L’idée que des « mesures de sécurité » dans les prisons se consacrent à « limiter la contrebande » en interdisant des livres, c’est assez symptomatique d’un pays où les élites, de toute façon, ne lisent jamais de livres.

    • Ah, je l’ai : Former Inmates Lose Their Right To Listen | Future of Music Coalition
      https://futureofmusic.org/blog/2016/02/23/former-inmates-lose-their-right-listen

      But some former federal prisoners are now arguing that their access to music has been wrongly compromised after leaving the prison walls behind. In a recent complaint, five former inmates allege that SanDisk Corp. and Advanced Technologies Group LLC (ATG) are taking advantage of an exclusive contract with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to financially exploit this vulnerable population at a time when their focus should be on successful reintegration into society. In the class action suit, filed in a United States District Court in Michigan, the former inmates assert claims for Sherman Antitrust Act violations, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, unconscionability and violations of state consumer protection laws. 

      Beginning in 2012, federal prisoners have been allowed to purchase MP3 music players with certain features disabled such as the external memory slot and the integrated microphone. They have a limited range of music to choose from—explicit, violent or racially charged songs are not available. Prison officials have hailed this program as potentially helping with safety and reducing recidivism. At $.80- $1.80 per song, inmates can spend as much as $1,200 to $2,700 on music before reaching their MP3 Player’s full capacity. But, the lawsuit alleges, inmates are not informed during their initial purchase is that unless they also purchase a post-release MP3 player from ATG upon their release, they won’t have access to any of the songs or other audio files that they purchased during their incarceration. In addition, the former inmates have a limited period during which they may recover the purchased music collection, thus if a former inmate does not buy a SanDisk post release MP3 player from ATG within one year of release from prison, their purchase amount of possibly $2,700 will be lost, and they can’t transfer their files to another device.

      The former inmates have little choice in the matter, because SanDisk’s Sansa Clip + is their only option; BOP’s contract gave ATG the exclusive right to supply prison-restricted MP3 players and MP3 music and audio files to inmates in BOP facilities. SanDisk is also the exclusive supplier of post-release MP3 player, so the only way the former inmates can retain access to their purchased music after release is to purchase another MP3 player from SanDisk. Imagine being required to buy an iPod twice in order to listen to the possibly several thousand songs you already paid iTunes for or lose them. To add insult to injury, it’s an MP3 player that costs $40 at Walmart, but $110 through this program. That’s predatory pricing that recalls the debate over the shockingly high cost of prison phone calls which recently prompted action by the FCC after years of hard work by a coalition of activists including MAG-Net, Center for Media Justice, and others.

  • Stop the music
    By Charles Duan
    http://boingboing.net/2015/07/28/music.html

    In the District Court for the Central District of California
    Eugene L. Whitman v. Alfred Vail Enterprises, Inc.
    COMPLAINT FOR COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT
    February 18, 2044

    comes now plaintiff, Eugene L. Whitman, by and through his attorneys, and bringing a complaint against Alfred Vail Enterprises, Inc., states:

    1. Plaintiff Whitman is a songwriter and composer of the popular song ’Taking It Back.’

    2. On January 14, 2044, Defendant Vail Enterprises first distributed the now-hit song ’Straight Focus.’

    3. ’Straight Focus’ includes an eight-note sample from ’Taking It Back.’ Vail Enterprises accordingly infringed Whitman’s copyright by making an unauthorized derivative work.

    Wherefore, Whitman prays for judgment against Vail Enterprises as follows:

    A. A permanent injunction prohibiting Vail Enterprises from continuing to infringe Whitman’s copyright;

    B. Destruction of all copies of ’Straight Focus’ in Vail Enterprises’ possession; and

    C. An order requiring Vail Enterprises to erase the song ’Straight Focus’ from the memories of all persons residing in the United States.

    #copyright #drm

  • State of Michigan Incredibly Claims It Has The Right To ’Regulate Sexual Relationships’ -
    http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/18/michigan-claims-right-regulate-sexual-relationships

    State of Michigan Incredibly Claims It Has The Right To ‘Regulate Sexual Relationships’
    Author: Randa Morris September 18, 2013 9:33 am
    What does the right to ’regulate sexual relationships’ even mean? Will the State of Michigan will start requiring permits for authorized activities?

    What does the right to ‘regulate sexual relationships’ even mean? Will the State of Michigan will start requiring permits for authorized activities?

    On September 9, 2013 Attorneys for the state of Michigan filed paperwork in District Court asserting the state’s right to “regulate sexual relationships.” The court filing is in response to a civil action filed earlier this by Plaintiff Deboer. Deboer filed a suit against the state’s unconstitutional same sex marriage ban, which denies same sex couples the right to marry or to adopt children. In the state’s response, filed on behalf of Governor Rick Snyder, the Michigan attorney general claims:

    “One of the paramount purposes of marriage in Michigan — and at least 37 other states that define marriage as a union between a man and a woman — is, and has always been, to regulate sexual relationships between men and women so that the unique procreative capacity of such relationships benefits rather than harms society.”

    Far from being a casual statement made off the cuff, this is a statement that has been carefully crafted by the state’s attorneys, and undoubtedly reflects the position held by Snyder administration.

    The state not only claims the authority to regulate sexual relationships, but states that regulating sexual relationships is the paramount purpose of marriage in Michigan.

    Attorneys also make the claim that the state has the right to regulate procreation, and argument which has been tried and debunked at least a thousand times already. If procreation were the primary reason to allow or not allow marriage there would be a lot of people denied marriage certificates, not just gay and lesbian couples. Infertile couples, for instance, and couples who have passed the age of “procreation.”

    If the court were somehow to rule in favor of the state in this case, it is logical to assume that marriages between senior citizens or between couples that cannot conceive, could (hypothetically) be denied using the same ruling. Could the state also move ban sex for any reason other than procreation? A good many GOP and Tea Party reps across the country would certainly support such laws.

    This claim goes even further beyond the procreation argument though. The Snyder administrations asserts that the state has the right to regulate sex. How many citizens in the state of Michigan realized that the “paramount purpose of marriage in the state of Michigan” was for the state to regulate their sexual relationships?

    A ruling that upholds the state’s right to “regulate sexual relationships” could also (hypothetically) open the doors for any number of laws banning sexual activity, both inside and outside of marriage. Other states have attempted to outlaw anal sex and oral sex. What about sex outside of marriage? What about Adultery?

    Maybe they’ll outlaw everything except the missionary position.

    Or regulate the number of times a couple can have sex in a week or a month.

    Maybe they’ll start requiring temporary sex permits — for legal and state approved sexual activities only, of course.

    This is what a Tea Party controlled government looks like. A government that is preoccupied with regulating sexual relationships, while ignoring poverty, joblessness, crumbling schools, failing infrastructure. A government so big it can afford to watch your every activity in the bedroom but far too small to pass a single law to help it’s struggling people get out of bankruptcy.