Marcus Hutchins -- The Guy Who Stopped Wannacry -- Pleads Guilty To Conspiracy Charges
Furnished content.
Almost two years after Marcus Hutchins, a.k.a. MalwareTech, was detained by the FBI at the airport as he left a security conference in Las Vegas, the government finally has finally gotten its man.Charges were stacked and restacked over the past couple of years, as the government brought pressure to bear on Hutchins, who maintained his innocence right up to the point he signed the plea agreement [PDF]. Faced with possibility of spending several years in jail -- and evidence of his past, somewhat shadier exploits continuing to surface -- the man who saved the world from the Wannacry ransomware has pleaded guilty to two conspiracy charges. This means the government will be dropping the other eight charges against Hutchins, which will hopefully keep the researcher from spending several years in jail.The defendant voluntarily agrees to plead guilty to Counts One and Two of the superseding indictment.The defendant acknowledges, understands, and agrees that he is, in fact, guilty of the offenses described in paragraph 4. The parties acknowledge and understand that if this case were to proceed to trial, the government would be able to prove the facts in Attachment A, as well as the facts set forth in Counts One and Two of the superseding indictment, beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant admits that these facts are true and correct and establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The information in Attachment A is provided for the purpose of setting forth a factual basis for the plea of guilty. It is not a full recitation of the defendant's knowledge of, or participation in, the offenses. The agreement says both counts carry a possible five-year sentence each, but it seems unlikely it will ask the judge to depart upward from the guidelines. Marcy Wheeler's back-of-the-envelope math puts this at about six months per charge, given Hutchins' lack of criminal history. It may end up being more than that if the DOJ pitches something longer as some twisted form of payback for Hutchins exercising his right to defend himself against criminal charges. That's not exactly unheard of.Hutchins has also posted a short message at his personal website, admitting guilt and apologizing for the damage he may have caused.As you may be aware, I’ve pleaded guilty to two charges related to writing malware in the years prior to my career in security. I regret these actions and accept full responsibility for my mistakes. Having grown up, I’ve since been using the same skills that I misused several years ago for constructive purposes. I will continue to devote my time to keeping people safe from malware attacks. Hutchins' plea brings an end to a dubious DOJ prosecution -- one that makes the unproven assertion that creating and selling malware is a criminal act, whether or not Hutchins himself engaged in illegal acts using this malware. And it only further blurs the lines security researchers operate in, increasing the chance that research -- which often includes the creation and deployment of malware -- will be treated as criminal activity.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 25-Apr-2019
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
Mercedes Goes To Court To Get Background Use Of Public Murals In Promotional Pics Deemed Fair Use
Furnished content.
The unsettled nature of how copyright law applies to public works of art like murals continues to be frustrating in the extreme. We've already seen examples of how this becomes an issue with mural artists whose work briefly appears in unrelated works, such as music videos, as those works are filmed in public. You guys remember public, right? It's that place we all get to coexist and enjoy together without constantly stomping on each other's necks over intellectual property rights. Except we don't anymore, as far too many artists believe that they can imprint their art in full view of the public and then disallow any commercial depiction of that public space.And if that doesn't sound idiotic to you, you need psychological care.This is once again at issue, as Mercedes has asked a court to make it clear that murals appearing on public walls in the background of a few promotional photos of their vehicles is fair use. This is in response to the very threatening noises made by four mural artists to their murals appearing in the background of some Instagram images. To be clear, Mercedes is suing only to ask for a court to declare images, like the following, fair use, not to attack the artists themselves.That partial mural in the background is one of the murals in dispute by the four artists. The mural is not the focus of the photo. It's not the subject of the photo. It's just that Mercedes took pictures of its vehicle driving around in public and those murals are in the background, partially depicted. Whatever that is, it sure doesn't sound like copyright infringement, and sure does sound a hell of a lot like fair use. Which is exactly what Mercedes is asking the court to declare.Mercedes has filed lawsuits against four artists after they accused the car company of infringing upon their copyright by including graffiti murals in the backgrounds of car photos posted to Instagram.The Detroit News reports that in its lawsuits filed on March 29th, Mercedes is asking a federal judge to rule in its favor against claims being made by artists Daniel Bombardier, James “Dabls” Lewis, Jeff Soto, and Maxx Gramajo. It was only a year after the photos were published that the artists began accusing Mercedes of copyright infringement. All that harm must have really been delayed, I suppose. As a symbol of their artistic dedication, even after Mercedes took the photos down from Instagram due to the complaints, those same artists continued to demand Mercedes pay them for the images. In its suit, the car company is arguing both that its use was fair use and that the murals are exempt from copyright as a matter of law.Mercedes argues that its inclusion of the murals was fair use and that the murals are exempt from copyright protection under the Architectural WorksCopyright Protection Act since they’re permanent parts of the architecture. Which seems like a bit of a stretch. Permanent is not the word I would use for graffiti, having seen it, you know, removed before. The fair use argument is much stronger, given the limited nature of the use, the fact that it wasn't the subject of the larger use, and the damned fact that all of this is in full view of the public. Mercedes was using Detroit to sell its cars, not these murals. Calling this copyright infringement would make no more sense than a restaurant across the street from the murals being accused of replicating a public performance by putting in patio seating in full view of the mural.So let's hope the courts get this right and we get some caselaw to do with public murals.
Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
Read more here
posted at: 12:00am on 25-Apr-2019
path: /Policy | permalink | edit (requires password)
|
|
