Voting really feels good to this werewolf. (credit: State of Michigan)
You can't just ask the Internet to vote on something and assume you'll get a "normal" result.
The town of Fort Wayne, Indiana, learned this the hard way in 2011, when an online vote to name a new government center in town went with "Harry Baals." Though Mr. Baals was in fact a respected former mayor of the town back in the 1930s, contemporary officials weren't convinced that his name was chosen out of merely historical interest.
Or there was the time in 2015 when the British Columbia Ferry Service asked Internet users to name its newest ships and perhaps win a $500 prize. Contest entries included:
Spirit of The WalletSucker
The Floating Crapsickle
Royal Docksitter
The Coastal Corruption
HMS Cantafford
Queen of the Damned
Or again—and perhaps most famously—there was the UK government's gloriously naive decision in 2016 to let the Internet pick a new name for a £200 million polar research vessel. And 124,109 members of the general public chose... Boaty McBoatface. (This was later overridden by the government, which named the ship the RRS Sir David Attenborough instead, but one of the boat's remotely operated underwater vehicles was named Boaty McBoatface as a consolation prize.)
Even the not-quite-bleeding-edge-of-tech New York Times recognized in its headline on the story that this is "What You Get When You Let the Internet Decide."
So, despite many years of cautionary tales, the state of Michigan this year launched a contest to design some new "I Voted" sticker designs. (NB: For our non-American readers, these stickers are often given out when you vote in elections so that you can shame any nonvoting friends, family, and colleagues with your civic virtue.)
The state commissioned designs from local school kids, no doubt anticipating that said designs would feature things like heartwarming drawings of the Michigan mitten. And they let the Internet weigh in on the results.
More than 57,000 people did so—and that's why voters across the state, once they cast a ballot in this year's presidential election, might be handed a round sticker featuring a werewolf ripping its own shirt to shreds as it throws its head back and howls like a maniac in front of an American flag. And it is glorious.
Why not?
This piece of inspired artwork came from the mind and pen of 12-year-old Jane Hynous of Grosse Pointe Farms. Though the contest selected nine winners, Hynous' design beat every other entry by a wide margin. (See all winners here.)
The New York Times called Hynous to talk about the sticker and received this terrific quote:
"I didn't want to do something that usually you think of when you think of Michigan," she said. "I was like, 'Why not make a wolf pulling his shirt off?'"
Why not, indeed? Clearly, the Internet has delivered on this one.
Michigan plans to print a million stickers, which will feature all nine winning designs, and local election clerks will need to order specific designs from the state. (They can also order the original, boring American flag "I Voted" stickers. But why would they?)
So if you live in Michigan, and if this November you want your shirt adorned with an insane werewolf celebrating the vote you just cast, now is the time to let your local clerk know.
Still, despite these great designs, I can't help but feel that an opportunity was lost. No "Votey McVoteface"? Perhaps in 2028.
> The town of Fort Wayne, Indiana, learned this the hard way in 2011, when an online vote to name a new government center in town went with "Harry Baals." Though Mr. Baals was in fact a respected former mayor of the town back in the 1930s
Remember when Apple debuted the Apple TV remote without a Find My feature and the internet collectively groaned because losing your TV remote is perhaps the single biggest cliche as far as remote controllers go? Well, here’s a similar situation – imagine losing the charger to your phone or laptop. I’m sure it’s happened to you multiple times (it literally happened to me today)… and while I don’t recommend waiting for Apple to build the Find My feature into their chargers, I really don’t need to because Twelve South beat them to it. The world’s first (and so far only) charging bricks with their own tracking chip, the Twelve South PlugBug chargers made their first appearance at IFA today. Designed to be compact, colorful, powerful, and trackable, these charging bricks are the perfect accessory for the absent-minded tech-user. Imagine misplacing your charger in a crowded cafe, at work, or under the bed at home; with Find My, you can locate it just like you would an AirTag. That’s what Twelve South brings to the table with the PlugBug 50 and the more robust PlugBug 120.
The PlugBug series comes in 2 models – the smaller 50W charger, and a larger 120W charger with replaceable heads for international travel. The smaller PlugBug 50 has a 50W output (as its name suggests) and offers dual USB-C ports, perfect for powering up your iPhone and iPad simultaneously. It’s designed to slide into your daily routine with ease, packing just enough power to handle multiple devices without taking up much space in your bag, or behind your couch.
The PlugBug 120, on the other hand, is a multi-port powerhouse with 120W of total output, enough to charge a MacBook Pro, an iPad, and two more devices—all at once. With four USB-C ports, it’s ideal for those juggling multiple gadgets, whether you’re working from a coffee shop or charging up in a hotel room. Twelve South deliberately ditched the USB-A ports for these plugs, keeping things modern and up-to-date. The standout feature, however, is the interchangeable plug heads for different regions. Whether you’re hopping between the US, UK, or Europe, the PlugBug 120 has you covered with its international plug options. It’s a simple yet effective solution for people who often find themselves digging through a bag of adapters just to get their gear charged abroad.
But what sets both chargers apart from your standard USB-C bricks is their integration with Apple’s Find My network. Misplaced your charger? No problem. You can track it via the Find My app, and yes, this even works when the charger is offline. Unlike most gadgets you lose in your daily hustle, the PlugBug can be tracked just like an AirTag. It’s a feature that’s becoming increasingly valuable as we juggle more devices in our connected lives. Due to electrical regulations, the Find My feature is powered by a tiny, replaceable battery instead of being directly connected to the plug itself (you’ll need to swap it out every year or so). This simultaneously ensures that Find My works even if the charger isn’t plugged in.
The design of both chargers doesn’t stray too far from what we’ve come to expect from Twelve South—clean, minimal, and functional. The foldable prongs on both models make them super portable, while the compact design ensures they fit into tight spots, whether at home or in cramped outlets on the road. They’re also a combination of white and bright red, so don’t worry about not spotting the charger from a mile away. If the charger does become difficult to find, the Find My is a pretty cool add-on.
As for pricing, the PlugBug 50 will run you $69.99, while the PlugBug 120 is priced at $119.99—not exactly impulse buys, but reasonable for what they offer, especially if you factor in the peace of mind that comes with never losing your charger again. Both models are expected to hit shelves by mid-September 2024.
Given how losing a charger can often feel like losing a limb, the PlugBug lineup offers a bit of relief—and a clever way to keep your tech life on track. Just remember to check Find My before you accuse the couch of eating your charger.
Jason Momoa and Jack Black star in A Minecraft Movie.
Minecraft is among the most successful and influential games of the early 21st century, winning many awards and selling over 300 million copies (so far) since its 2011 release. So it was only a matter of time before Hollywood gave us a feature film based on the 3D sandbox game, simply titled A Minecraft Movie. Sure, one might have reservations about yet another video game-based movie, but on the plus side, we've got Jason Momoa and Jack Black co-starring. And the first teaser is full of eye-popping candy-colored cubic visuals and sly references to the game that should please fans.
Within a year of Minecraft's initial release, Mojang Studios was fielding offers from Hollywood producers about making a TV series based on the game, but the company wanted to wait for "the right idea." There was a 2014 attempt to crowd-source a fan film, but game creator Markus "Notch" Persson didn't agree to license that effort since he was already negotiating with Warner Bros. about developing a film based on the game. Thus began a long, convoluted process of directors and writers being hired and leaving the project for various reasons.
When the dust finally settled, Jared Hess (who worked with Black on Nacho Libre) ended up directing. The COVID pandemic and 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike delayed things further, but filming finally wrapped earlier this year in Auckland, New Zealand—just in time for a spring 2025 theatrical release. Per the official synopsis:
Welcome to the world of Minecraft, where creativity doesn’t just help you craft, it’s essential to one’s survival! Four misfits—Garrett “The Garbage Man” Garrison (Jason Momoa), Henry (Sebastian Eugene Hansen), Natalie (Emma Myers) and Dawn (Danielle Brooks)—find themselves struggling with ordinary problems when they are suddenly pulled through a mysterious portal into the Overworld: a bizarre, cubic wonderland that thrives on imagination. To get back home, they’ll have to master this world (and protect it from evil things like Piglins and Zombies, too) while embarking on a magical quest with an unexpected, expert crafter, Steve (Jack Black). Together, their adventure will challenge all five to be bold and to reconnect with the qualities that make each of them uniquely creative… the very skills they need to thrive back in the real world.
Game players will recognize Steve as one of the default characters in Minecraft. The teaser is set to The Beatles' "Magical Mystery Tour" and opens with our misfits encountering a fantastical Tolkien-esque landscape—only with a lot more cube-like shapes, like a pink sheep with a cubed head. We get the aforementioned Piglins and other creatures before Black appears and dramatically announces with great fanfare, "I.... am Steve." Honestly, we'll probably watch it just for Black's performance alone.
Judges for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday rejected the Internet Archive (IA) argument that its controlled digital lending—which allows only one person to borrow each scanned e-book at a time—was a transformative fair use that worked like a traditional library and did not violate copyright law.
As Judge Beth Robinson wrote in the decision, because the IA's digital copies of books did not "provide criticism, commentary, or information about the originals" or alter the original books to add "something new," the court concluded that the IA's use of publishers' books was not transformative, hobbling the organization's fair use defense.
"IA’s digital books serve the same exact purpose as the originals: making authors’ works available to read," Robinson said, emphasizing that in copyright law, however, "[n]ot every instance will be clear cut... this one is."
The appeals court ruling affirmed the lower court's ruling, which permanently barred the IA from distributing not just the works in the suit, but all books “available for electronic licensing,” Robinson said.
"To construe IA’s use of the Works as transformative would significantly narrow―if not entirely eviscerate―copyright owners’ exclusive right to prepare (or not prepare) derivative works," Robinson wrote.
Maria Pallante, president and CEO of the Association of American Publishers, the trade organization behind the lawsuit, celebrated the ruling. She said the court upheld "the rights of authors and publishers to license and be compensated for their books and other creative works and reminds us in no uncertain terms that infringement is both costly and antithetical to the public interest."
"If there was any doubt, the Court makes clear that under fair use jurisprudence there is nothing transformative about converting entire works into new formats without permission or appropriating the value of derivative works that are a key part of the author’s copyright bundle,” Pallante said.
Lead attorneys representing publishers, Elizabeth A. McNamara and Linda Steinman, provided statements to Ars.
"The Second Circuit’s decision is animated by common sense and the desire to foster creativity," McNamara said. "The Court correctly rejected Internet Archive’s arguments that mass copyright infringement can be justified by invoking convoluted theories like the ‘one-to-one-owned to loaned-ratio.’"
"As the Court’s clear-eyed opinion demonstrates, there was nothing transformative about Internet Archive’s distribution of millions of unlicensed ebooks," Steinman said. "This unequivocal decision will serve as a clear warning to future infringers.”
The Internet Archive's director of library services, Chris Freeland, issued a statement on the loss, which comes after four years of fighting to maintain its Open Libraries Project.
"We are disappointed in today’s opinion about the Internet Archive’s digital lending of books that are available electronically elsewhere," Freeland said. "We are reviewing the court’s opinion and will continue to defend the rights of libraries to own, lend, and preserve books."
IA’s lending harmed publishers, judge says
The court's fair use analysis didn't solely hinge on whether IA's digital lending of e-books was "transformative." Judges also had to consider book publishers' claims that IA was profiting off e-book lending, in addition to factoring in whether each work was original, what amount of each work was being copied, and whether the IA's e-books substituted original works, depriving authors of revenue in relevant markets.
Ultimately, for each factor, judges ruled in favor of publishers, which argued that granting IA was threatening to "'destroy the value of [their] exclusive right to prepare derivative works,' including the right to publish their authors’ works as e-books."
While the IA tried to argue that book publishers' surging profits suggested that its digital lending caused no market harms, Robinson disagreed with the IA experts' "ill-supported" market analysis and took issue with IA advertising "its digital books as a free alternative to Publishers’ print and e-books."
"IA offers effectively the same product as Publishers―full copies of the Works―but at no cost to consumers or libraries," Robinson wrote. "At least in this context, it is difficult to compete with free."
Robinson wrote that despite book publishers showing no proof of market harms, that lack of evidence did not support IA's case, ruling that IA did not satisfy its burden to prove it had not harmed publishers. She further wrote that it's common sense to agree with publishers' characterization of harms because "IA’s digital books compete directly with Publishers’ e-books" and would deprive authors of revenue if left unchecked.
"We agree with Publishers’ assessment of market harm" and "are likewise convinced" that “unrestricted and widespread conduct of the sort engaged in by [IA] would result in a substantially adverse impact on the potential market" for publishers' e-books, Robinson wrote. "Though Publishers have not provided empirical data to support this observation, we routinely rely on such logical inferences where appropriate" when determining fair use.
Judges did, however, side with IA on the matter of whether the nonprofit was profiting off loaning e-books for free, contradicting the lower court. The appeals court disagreed with book publishers' claims that IA profited off e-books by soliciting donations or earning a small percentage from used books sold through referral links on its site.
"Of course, IA must solicit some funds to keep the lights on," Robinson wrote. But "IA does not profit directly from its Free Digital Library," and it would be "misleading" to characterize it that way. "To hold otherwise would greatly restrain the ability of nonprofits to seek donations while making fair use of copyrighted works."
Benefits to the public hotly disputed
In her opinion, Robinson noted that both book publishers and the Internet Archive "represent potentially serious interests."
"On the one hand, e-book licensing fees may impose a burden on libraries and reduce access to creative work," Robinson said. "On the other hand, authors have a right to be compensated in connection with the copying and distribution of their original creations."
Robinson considered the fact that more than 93 percent of libraries participate in digital lending, which book publishers view as "a profitable, growing market." Instead of charging libraries for individual books, the publishers offer licenses that must be renewed at increasing expense.
"For libraries, the result is regular renegotiation of e-book licenses that often come at a steeper price and for a shorter term than print copies of the same books," Robinson noted.
The IA strove to give libraries an alternative model by digitally scanning books that can be loaned online for free, and IA supporters have rallied behind this model, with 62 libraries partnering with the project. Among IA supporters is Meredith Rose, senior policy counsel for Public Knowledge, who filed a brief on behalf of the IA and posted a statement criticizing the appeals court's ruling.
"Controlled digital lending is a critical toolkit for libraries to reach their patrons in the digital age," Rose said. "With today’s decision, the Second Circuit undermines those policy goals," including by asserting, "bafflingly, that the Internet Archive is not entitled to statutory protections because it doesn’t perform ‘traditional functions of a library.’ It is unclear what the Second Circuit believes these ‘traditional functions’ to be, if not ‘lending books to the public.’"
Rose argued that IA had no access to "market data necessary to prove that their use has not created a market harm."
"Let us be perfectly clear: The court here is asking defendants to prove a negative, while allowing plaintiffs to actively withhold the only information that the court will accept as dispositive," Rose said. "The Second Circuit has replaced the fourth factor analysis with ‘vibes.’ Franz Kafka would be proud."
Lia Holland, a campaigns and communication director for Fight for the Future—a digital rights group that also supported the IA in court—said the appeals court ruling dealt "a myopic and dangerous blow" to "libraries, diverse authors, and the readers who love them." Unlike traditional libraries, the IA's digital library offered a more privacy-focused way of lending that let readers opt out of systems surveilling their reading habits, Holland suggested.
"Big Tech’s greed has infected Big Publishing, causing them to abandon the concept of ownership for digital books, and to force all libraries and readers to buy licenses that lock them into spyware-ridden apps that turn data on readers into a new product for publishing," Holland alleged.
When the lower court's injunction forced IA to remove 500,000 books from its library, IA fans begged book publishers to restore access. Readers asked publishers to consider the negative educational impact of academics, students, and educators—"particularly in underserved communities where access is limited—who were suddenly cut off from "research materials and literature that support their learning and academic growth."
Holland addressed this impact, insisting that "no one wants a world where libraries are just some Netflix spewing out whatever content Big Publishing and Big Tech allow them to temporarily license."
"It’s a sad day for book people, particularly for disabled, rural, and low-income readers who rely on libraries, and all those who want to write without the threat of erasure or read without the fear of surveillance and punishment, including 25+ civil and human rights organizations like GLAAD, Color of Change, and Presente.org," Holland said.
But Robinson wrote that the court concluded "that both Publishers and the public will benefit if IA’s use is denied."
According to the court, "Any copyright infringer may claim to benefit the public by increasing public access to the copyrighted work," but it cannot come at the cost of negating "rewards for authorship."
"This monopolistic power is a feature, not a bug, of the Copyright Act," Robinson wrote. "If authors and creators knew that their original works could be copied and disseminated for free, there would be little motivation to produce new works. And a dearth of creative activity would undoubtedly negatively impact the public. It is this reality that the Copyright Act seeks to avoid."
If the court had decided to "bless" IA's "large scale copying and distribution of copyrighted books without permission from or payment to the Publishers or authors," Robinson wrote, that "would allow for widescale copying that deprives creators of compensation and diminishes the incentive to produce new works."
So "while IA claims that prohibiting its practices would harm consumers and researchers," the court sided with publishers because "allowing its practices would―and does―harm authors," Robinson wrote.
Rose suggested that the last hope for IA fans may be to appeal to Congress to update laws to protect the future of libraries increasingly strapped to pay publishers' e-book licensing fees.
"We call on Congress to clarify the law surrounding Controlled Digital Lending and reaffirm that libraries can, in fact, lend the books that they own—regardless of format," Rose said.
This story was updated on September 4 to add comments from publishers' attorneys.
On Wednesday, federal prosecutors charged a North Carolina musician with defrauding streaming services of $10 million through an elaborate scheme involving AI, as reported by The New York Times. Michael Smith, 52, allegedly used AI to create hundreds of thousands of fake songs by nonexistent bands, then streamed them using bots to collect royalties from platforms like Spotify, Apple Music, and Amazon Music.
While the AI-generated element of this story is novel, Smith allegedly broke the law by setting up an elaborate fake listener scheme. The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, announced the charges, which include wire fraud and money laundering conspiracy. If convicted, Smith could face up to 20 years in prison for each charge.
Smith's scheme, which prosecutors say ran for seven years, involved creating thousands of fake streaming accounts using purchased email addresses. He developed software to play his AI-generated music on repeat from various computers, mimicking individual listeners from different locations. In an industry where success is measured by digital listens, Smith's fabricated catalog reportedly managed to rack up billions of streams.
To avoid detection, Smith spread his streaming activity across numerous fake songs, never playing a single track too many times. He also generated unique names for the AI-created artists and songs, trying to blend in with the quirky names of legitimate musical acts. Smith used artist names like "Callous Post" and "Calorie Screams," while their songs included titles such as "Zygotic Washstands" and "Zymotechnical."
Initially, Smith uploaded his own original compositions to streaming platforms but found that his small catalog failed to generate significant income. In an attempt to scale up, he briefly collaborated with other musicians, reportedly offering to play their songs for royalties, though these efforts failed. This led Smith to pivot to AI-generated music in 2018 when he partnered with an as-yet-unnamed AI music company CEO and a music promoter to create a large library of computer-generated songs. The district attorney announcement did not specify precisely what method Smith used to generate the songs.
The scheme was lucrative. In a 2017 email to himself, Smith calculated that he could stream his songs 661,440 times daily, potentially earning $3,307.20 per day and up to $1.2 million annually. By June 2019, Smith was earning about $110,000 monthly, sharing a portion with his co-conspirators. The NYT reports that in an email earlier this year, he boasted of reaching 4 billion streams and $12 million in royalties since 2019.
When confronted by a music distribution company about "multiple reports of streaming abuse" in 2018, The New York Times says that Smith acted shocked and strongly denied any wrongdoing, insisting there was "absolutely no fraud going on whatsoever."
LocalThunk, the pseudonymous lead developer of the surprise smash hit deckbuilding/roguelike/poker-math-simulation game Balatro, has long given the impression that he understands that his game, having sold 2 million copies, might be a little too good.
To that end, LocalThunk has made the game specifically not about actual gambling, or microtransactions, or anything of the kind. Shortly after it arrived in February 2024 (but after it already got its hooks into one of us), some storefronts removed or re-rated the game on concerns about its cards and chips themes, causing him to explain his line between random number generation (RNG), risk/reward mechanics, and actual gambling. He literally wrote it into his will that the game cannot be used in any kind of gambling or casino property.
So LocalThunk has done everything he can to ensure Balatro won't waste people's money. Time, though? If you're a Balatro fan already, or more of a mobile gamer than a console or computer player, your time is in danger.
Balatro is coming to iOS, both in the Apple Arcade subscription and as a stand-alone title, and the Google Play Store on September 26. The pitch-perfect reveal trailer slowly ratchets up the procrastinatory terror, with the word "MOBILE" punctuating scenes of gameplay, traditional businessmen crying, "Jimbo Stonks" rising upward (Jimbo being the moniker of Balatro's joker), and a world laid to waste by people chasing ever-more-elusive joker combos.
Please note in the trailer, at the 36-second mark, the "Trailer Ideas" for Balatro on Mobile, including "Announcing Balatro is now a Soulslike," "Romanceable Jimbo Reveal," and "It's like that apocalypse movie with the meteor but instead Jimbo is in the sky."
(credit: Playstack)
Even more Balatro content is coming
The mobile version of Balatro is one of three updates LocalThunk has planned for 2025. A gameplay update is still due to arrive sometime this year, one that will be completely free for game owners. It won't feel like a different game, or even a 1.5 version, LocalThunk told Polygon last month, but "extending that vision to, I think, its logical bounds instead of shifting directions … [M]ore about filling out the design space that currently exists, and then extending that design space in interesting directions that I think people are going to love.”
As we noted in our attempt to explain the ongoing popularity of roguelike deckbuilders, Balatro is LocalThunk's first properly released game. He claims to have not played any such games before making Balatro but was fascinated by streams of Luck Be a Landlord, a game about "using a slot machine to earn rent money and defeat capitalism." That game, plus influences of Cantonese game Big Two and the basics of poker (another game LocalThunk says he didn't actually play), brought about the time-melting game as we know it.
A number of Ars writers have kept coming back to Balatro, time and again, since its release. It's such a compelling game, especially for its indie-scale price, that none of us could really think of a way to write a stand-alone "review" of it. With its imminent arrival on iPhones, iPads, and Android devices, we're due to re-educate ourselves on how much time is really in each day and which kinds of achievements our families and communities need to see from us.
Maybe the game won't sync across platforms, and the impedance of having to start all over will be enough to prevent notable devolution. Maybe.
Log in
