Controversial Miami-based attorney Jack Thompson has been removed from a lawsuit filed by the families of two slain police officers and a police dispatcher against Sony, Rockstar Games, and game retailers. Furthermore, the judge in the case revoked Thompson's license to practice law in the state of Alabama citing Thompson's behavior as the cause of the sanction.

In our previous coverage of the trial, we reported that Thompson had voluntarily withdrawn from the case because he felt that the "other side [meaning the trial defendents] wants to make me the issue." However, Judge Moore, the case's presiding jurist, issued a stinging 18-page report in which the judge rejected Thompson's claim of voluntary removal and stated that Thompson was effectively thrown off the case for actions "before this Court [that] suggest that he is unable to conduct himself in a manner befitting practice in this state." Furthermore, Moore has referred Thompson's conduct to Disciplinary Commission of the Alabama Bar for "appropriate action." Such actions could potentially include complete permanent disbarrment from the practice of law in the state of Alabama.

Diebold never seems to think the law applies to it. The maker of electronic voting machines, has a long history of questionable activity when it comes to those machines. After it was discovered that internal documents proved that the company knew about security flaws in their own software, they sued, claiming copyright infringement -- basically confessing that the documents were legit. There were additional stories about Diebold illegally changing their software at the last minute, leaving default passwords, threatening extortionate prices to add a paper trail, and mostly hiding the fact that the main person who wrote most of the voting machine software had been jailed for fraud in the past. With all that in mind, you would think that (1) the company's e-voting machines would deserve extra scrutiny and (2) the company would bend over backwards to assist in that scrutiny to prove their systems were fine. It appears that's not the case. Over in North Carolina, where a new law says e-voting companies need to hand over their source code, Diebold somehow convinced a judge to exempt it from obeying that law. The EFF is now suing Diebold for evading the law in North Carolina. They may have a tough case, but it still should be scary for anyone still using electronic voting machines that this is still happening. It's entirely possible that Diebold has a legitimate reason for getting the exemption -- but it would seem like they should be pretty forthcoming in explaining just what that is.

With some help from Sabre Security, Sebastian Porst and Matti Nikki have identified some stolen GPL'd code in Sony's rootkit. Ironically the code in question seems to be VLC's demux/mp4/drms.c -- the de-DRMS code which circumvents Apple's DRM, written by 'DVD' Jon Lech Johansen and Sam Hocevar.

If you thought XCP "rootkit" copy-protection on Sony-BMG CDs was bad, perhaps you'd better read the 3,000 word (!) end-user license agreement (aka "EULA") that comes with all these CDs.

If your house gets burgled, you have to delete all your music from your laptop when you get home.

You can't keep your music on any computers at work.

If you move out of the country, you have to delete all your music.

You must install any and all updates, or else lose the music on your computer.

Sony-BMG can install and use backdoors in the copy protection software or media player to "enforce their rights" against you, at any time, without notice.

The EULA says Sony-BMG will never be liable to you for more than $5.00.

If you file for bankruptcy, you have to delete all the music on your computer.

You have no right to transfer the music on your computer, even along with the original CD.

Forget about using the music as a soundtrack for your latest family photo slideshow, or mash-ups, or sampling.

US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has proposed tough new copyright enforcement laws that would criminalise consumers simply for trying to make unauthorised copies of music, movies and software, whether they are successful or not.

Dubbed the Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2005 (IPPA), the bill, which has yet to be put before the US Congess, seeks to provide harsher penalties for copyright infringers, in particular those who do so persistently.

For tougher sentences, think not only bigger fines, but also jail terms, the seizure of equipment used to make illegal copies and the payment of compensation to the owner of the copied work, Gonzales indicated.

Gonzales' IPPA proposal comes after the US Supreme Court ruled that anyone seen to be knowingly aiding and abetting copyright infringement can be sued by copyright holders. That judgement led to renewed efforts by the Recording Industry Ass. of America (RIAA) to force P2P companies to block copyright infringement and to obtain licences to allow copyright works to be shared.

Jack Thompson has made a plea to Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, demanding that Penny Arcade's $10K donation (in Jack’s name) be considered criminal harassment.

When will it end? If we stop posting about Thompson, will he go away? Or, would making a collective agreement to shut him out of the gaming press leave his banter unchecked?

Eminem's publishers on Tuesday filed a complaint against five ringtone firms, alleging that they are using the rap star's songs as mobile phone ringtones without permission, according to the Associated Press.

Eminem, born Marshall Mathers, is no stranger to copyright actions. Last year his publishing company hit Apple Computer with a copyright infringement suit over an advert shown on MTV and on the Apple web site, which included a boy singing part of Eminem's hit "Lose Yourself". The rapper had not given his permission.

The case settled amicably in May this year, for an undisclosed sum.

The record industry may next aim its legal guns at satellite radio over a dispute involving new portable players that let listeners record and store songs, an analyst and industry sources said Wednesday.

The record industry, led by major labels such as Vivendi Universal, Warner Music Group Corp., EMI Group Plc and Sony BMG, believe the recording capability is a clear copyright violation and could take revenue away from paid download music services.

Illegal song trading has been blamed by the record industry for declines in sales, and labels have become increasingly aggressive in their legal battles to defend their product. Now that focus includes portable players.

"Based on recent talks with execs at record labels and the Recording Industry Association of America, we see potential spats ahead. RIAA may file a lawsuit this fall to stop a new feature for upcoming wearable satellite radios," he wrote.

Crockett said the RIAA may seek $1 billion plus in music rights fees for a new contract covering 2007 to 2012 to replace the current $80 million pact that expires in 2006.

Having already failed once to nail Brittany Chan through her mother, Candy, the Big Music cartel is now going after Britanny again, this time by herself.

She was 13 when this all started, but she's now 14 and in their latest move, the Big Four are using Matthew E. Krichbaum of Ann Arbour to demand that the US District Court of the Eastern District of Michigan appoint a Guardian ad Litem, in other words, an official legal guardian ---- which she'll definitely need with the venal and unscupulous labels trying to get her.

"Plaintiffs [read EMI, Warner, Universal and Sony BMG, the members of the Big Music record label cartel] initial investigation revealed that a computer in the Chan home was used to download (reproduce) and offer 829 digital music files for distribution. Plaintiffs initially filed an action against Brittany Chan’s mother, Candy Chan," says the complaint.

"Notwithstanding that her own testimony implicated her daughter, Candy Chan refused to take responsibility for her daughter and forced Plaintiffs to file this action directly against Brittany Chan even after they informed her that she had left them with no alternative."

Hundreds of people are being wrongly sued by the Recording Industry Association of America for illegally trading music online, legal experts say.

Attorneys representing some of the 14,000 people targeted for illegal music trading say their clients are being bullied into settling as the cheapest way to get out of trouble. Collection agencies posing as "settlement centers" are harassing their clients to pay thousands of dollars for claims about which they know nothing, they say.

In the court report (.pdf), Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff wrote: "Chan opposed the motion and asserted that the plaintiffs used a 'shotgun' approach to pursue this action, threatening to sue all of Chan's children and engaging in abusive behavior to attempt to utilize the court as a collection agency."

"Prior to retaining lawyers, when (defendants) talk to the settlement support center, they are threatened with criminal prosecution, ruin of their credit, publication of their names," he said.