Why I Oppose the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)/E-PARASITES Act

Eric Goldman has a great summary of the bill and its problems. Well recommended reading.

At Web Censorship Hearing, Congress Guns for “Pro-Pirate” Google

Nate Anderson at Ars Technica had a good summary of the SOPA testimony before Congress.

In other news:

RIAA Wants ReDigi Out Of The Business of Selling “Used” iTunes Tracks

This was the most interesting new application of the First Sale doctrine in copyright this week. As I understand the business sells a copy and not the actually sold iTunes track, this one may not turn out in ReDigi’s favor. This dispute will be worth watching.

Vint Cerf: The Government Is Going Overboard in Internet Copyright Control

On November 14th, Vint Cerf spoke to the Atmosphere conference:

“He told the audience, “Remember, governance is a big word that includes human rights, freedom of speech, economic transactions on a worldwide basis — it touches everything. It’s everywhere, and that’s why Internet governance is topic A in many corners.”

PhoneDog v. Kravitz

This lawsuit over corporate Twitter followers as “property” is quite interesting. Kravitz left PhoneDog with 17,000 followers, and instead of turning over the account he changed the name from “Phonedog_Noah” to his personal name. On a Motion to Dismiss, the Court (Northern District of California) decided to deny Kravitz’s motion. Well worth reading.

Judge Rules Feds Can Have WikiLeaks Associates’ Twitter Data

On November 10th, Judge O’Grady of the Eastern District of Virgina ruled that government prosecutors can have access to information about three Wikileaks supporters’ Twitter accounts – not the content, but the metadata. This decision has been criticized by the EFF.

Finally, I’d like to note that if people are interested in my firm’s IP Webinar series, the next webinar I’m presenting will be on December 7, 2011 on “Online Works: Copyright Registration and Enforcement.” For more information, follow this link.

SOPA and other @Cyberlaw Links is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

Also, for those who may be interested, here is the link to the recent webinar I did for my firm on “Common Trademark Application Problems.”

And now, on to this week’s @cyberlaw links -

RIAA Lawyer Says DMCA May Need Overhaul

Greg Sandoval of CNET had an interesting article, focusing on a statement during a panel discussion by Jennifer Pariser that the DMCA needed an overhaul.  She said:

“We might need to go to Congress at some point for a fix,” Pariser added. “Not because the statute was badly drafted but because the interpretation has been so hamstrung by court decisions.”

 

In a World of Cybertheft, U.S. Names China, Russia as Main Culprits

A report from the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive named China and Russia as the main bad actors in the world of cyber-espionage.

“Chinese actors are the world’s most active and persistent perpetrators of economic espionage,” said the report, “Foreign Spies Stealing U.S. Economic Secrets in Cyberspace,” which was based on the work of 14 U.S. intelligence agencies. The report also notes that “Russia’s intelligence services are conducting a range of activities to collect economic information and technology from U.S. targets.”

The Digital Death of Copyright’s First Sale Doctrine

Annemarie Bridy’s article is on the First Sale Doctrine and the effect that the Supreme Court’s denial of cert in the Vernor v. Autodesk case had on the doctrine. I heartily encourage you to read it.

Did Chevy Steal This Commercial Idea From a Popular Blog?

It was nice to be quoted by Matt Silverman in this Mashable article discussing the extent of copyright protection in the underlying concept of a blog.

Why Parents Help Children Violate Facebook’s 13+ Rule

This study by Danah Boyd, Eszter Hargittai, Jason Schultz and John Palfrey looked at the real-life application of COPPA and parents who help their children skirt its requirements. It’s well worth reading.

S. 978 – What Justin Bieber Has To Do With Online Streaming Bill

I was quoted in this article from the Christian Science Monitor discussing Senate Bill 978, the Commercial Felony Streaming Act.

TWiL 136 and @cyberlaw Links is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

This week’s @cyberlaw links are interesting to me for many reasons:

Heading Off Privacy Problems—Before They Arise

I thought this article by Julia Angwin was a good look at how some companies are undertaking “privacy-impact assessments” before undertaking new initiatives.  There’s nothing like heading off problems at the pass, and it is good to add privacy considerations to your normal checklist of items to consider before things go out the door.

Is Printing a Gun the Same as Buying One?

John Bigg’s article was very interesting to me because 3-d printing is becoming more prevalent. The article looks at the problems that arise when an item that would normally require a permit to purchase (the lower receiver for an AR-15 rifle) can be printed at home on the device you made. 3-d printers like Makerbot’s raise concerns, as John points out:

“I find it fascinating that we’re even asking these questions at this point. The fact that we are now able to manufacture usable weapon parts is an important step in the evolution of fabrication and manufacture and, if I were a weapons giant, I’d start rethinking my sales strategies. When a company of rebels can print their own AK-47s (a concept that is still a ways off), whose fault is it? The person who made the plans? The fabricator? The company whose rifles they copied?”

Stay tuned, this debate will have far reaching implications in years to come.

Typosquatting Continues to Pose Dangers to Enterprises, Consumers

Mary Roach’s article did a good job pointing out the concern with “doppelganger” websites – which are like a typical typosquatting domain, but instead of being a misspelling it’s merely missing an important dot, like “mailyahoo.com” instead of “mail.yahoo.com.”  This is one case where proactive defensive registrations can be quite helpful, which Mary recommends along with other good advice.

US Net Neutrality Rules Finalized, In Effect November 20

I’ve been following the Net Neutrality debate for years, and now the FCC’s still-controversial final “open-internet” rules [PDF] will be in effect on November 20, 2011. Now, the legal challenges can begin.

Copyright Basics webinar and @cyberlaw Links is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

HP Touchpad’s Fate

Jonathan Ezor’s review of the HP Touchpad I linked to last week became more timely after HP’s announcement that it was discontinuing the platform. It looks like WebOS may live on in some form, but the TouchPad itself is being phased out. Sad, really, as among Jonathan’s conclusions was the following nugget:

“With its ease of setup and support, true multitasking, Bluetooth keyboard compatibility, Flash-enabled browser, and Synergy, the HP TouchPad represents a solid choice for law firms and legal departments that want to add tablets to their technology portfolios.”

Too bad. I used Palms before they were even called Palms (I had a Pilot 1000 back in the day), and was quietly rooting for HP to do well after it acquired Palm.

Fake Apple Stores in China

On Ron Coleman’s Likelihood of Confusion blog, guest author Paul Jones offered his insight into the fake Apple Stores that were recently spotted in China. His insight isn’t that China is finding it hard to crack down on infringers, but rather the remote nature of the province and its inability to have a real store:

Kunming is the capital of Yunnan Province, in the far south of China. The province borders on Vietnam, Laos and Myanmar. It is thus far inland and is not one of the richer coastal provinces where foreign retailers first open their stores. But Kunming Prefecture has about 6 ½ million people. In other words there is demand there but no supply.

The entire article is well worth a read.

The Challenge of Producing Secure Devices

This article in Security Week was interesting for its insight into the world of developers. The pressure on developers to ship devices is so strong that they may have to ship devices with security flaws in order to meet deadlines. Chris Eng of Veracode is quoted as saying:

“I don’t think that every tiny bug, every tiny security bug, has to be fixed before it goes out the door,” he said. “Ideally you fix as many as you can but there’s always going to be some date where you have to ship stuff and you have to prioritize…but you also shouldn’t forget about them.”

This is relevant as many security issues today come from these vulnerabilities which may never be completely patched. There will always be someone who hasn’t applied the recommended security patches, etc., and thus perpetuate the problem caused by the hardware being released this way.

Copyright Termination

I liked this article by Larry Rohter on the upcoming battle over recording artists who can now file termination notices for their master recordings dating from 1978. The recording studios say no deal, however, claiming that the master recordings are works made for hire and thus not eligible for termination. As the article notes,

“Independent copyright experts, however, find that argument unconvincing. Not only have recording artists traditionally paid for the making of their records themselves, with advances from the record companies that are then charged against royalties, they are also exempted from both the obligations and benefits an employee typically expects.”

Artists already filing notices include Bob Dylan, Tom Petty, Bryan Adams, Loretta Lynn, Kris Kristofferson, Tom Waits and Charlie Daniels.

This Week’s @cyberlaw Links is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

Most wireless routers come out of the box with the default setting of being wide open, i.e. with no security, so anyone can use the connection who is within range of it. Many security experts recommend that manufacturers change these defaults, but that is the situation currently.

Many security experts recommend WPA2 level encryption if your device supports it. The older type, WEP, can be cracked in less than a minute with commonly available tools, so it is not recommended. It still would be better than no encryption if that is all your device supports.

A good way to find out how to secure your own wireless network is to search Google with the terms “how to secure wireless network” along with the manufacturer’s name or model number of the device. Some general advice can be found in this WikiHow article, although I do disagree with its recommendation for MAC address filtering. I’d also recommend listening to the Security Now podcasts relating to encryption, including Episode 13, at http://www.grc.com/securitynow.htm. The transcript can be found here – http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-013.htm. It’s an oldie (the show now has over 300 episodes), but that old episode is still worth listening to.

Of course, there are arguments for open wireless networks, but that should be a choice, not a default, in my humble opinion.

Securing Your Wireless Network is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

The bare minimum the judge could award for violation of the DMCA’s trafficking provision, §1201(a)(2), was $200 per infringement, and the plaintiffs were able to prove that there were 1,074,093 infringements. Accordingly, the court awarded $214,898,600. Further, the plaintiff can seek its attorneys fees as well.

For more on the case, and to download a copy of the decision, visit Satscams.com.

Court awards $214 Million for DMCA Circumvention is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

In the speech, entitled “Code is Law: Does Anyone Get This Yet?“, Lessig discusses some of the problems with copyright law’s application to regulate the digital world. I can’t adequately summarize the speech; it needs to be experienced. Here is a link. Lessig makes effective use of Keynote as the presentation platform and sprinkles the speech with video clips that demonstrate the Remix culture.

I was particularly struck by his evocation of John Philip Sousa‘s concern that recorded music would stifle culture. Sousa was worried that the youth would no longer gather and sing the old songs, or the songs of the day. Lessig proposes that Sousa would approve of the Remix culture as a modern day example of what he wanted to preserve.

At the end of the speech, Lessig tied these concerns about copyright law and internet regulation into a call to action to support the grassroots organization he helped start, Rootstrikers. Lessig proposes that many of the problems with current copyright law come from issues with how our politicians are funded. I personally doubt this by itself will bring the desired change, but it can’t hurt.

The rest of Techshow was also remarkable. I enjoyed the Macintosh and e-discovery sessions. I also learned some good workflows for integrating my new iPad into my practice. All in all, it was another remarkable conference. I am looking forward to Techshow 2012, which will be from March 29-31. Perhaps I will see you there.

Reactions to Lessig’s Keynote Speech at ABA Techshow 2011 is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

For those seeking more information, the EFF has a great page of subpoena defense resources available here.

“John Doe” Filesharing Lawsuits is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

For the service provider hypothetical, I mentioned that while the notice and takedown provisions under the DMCA may be difficult to comply with when there are numerous infringements, it is the system we have.

Declan McCullagh’s article on CNet entitled “RIAA: U.S. Copyright law “isn’t working” speaks to this point as well. Essentially, the RIAA complains that it is too difficult to police YouTube and other sites, and they would prefer to forge deals with intermediaries in other parts of the chain, such as broadband providers, to help keep their works from being infringed online.

The quote from YouTube’s counsel in response is as follows:

“Lance Kavanaugh, product counsel for YouTube, disagreed that copyright law is broken. “It’s our view that the DMCA is functioning exactly the way Congress intended it to,” he said.”

I’d agree with that point – this is the law as enacted, and the natural consequences of the growth of the Internet and the web since the law was enacted in 1998. It is a compromise designed to allow the sites like YouTube to function while still balancing the needs of the copyright holders. It’s not a perfect system, but it is a compromise. Whether it remains a fair compromise is the RIAA’s point.

The alternatives I’ve seen so far go too far to hurt the rights of another stakeholder in this debate – the users. For example, a “three strikes” policy for users at the ISP level has been proposed before, and shot down, because there are few procedural safeguards to protect users at that level. Who determines what is a “strike” and what are the consequences for having three? A permanent ban on broadband access? That seems harsh and has much potential for abuse.

So, while the DMCA takedown provisions are not ideal for the RIAA and the other content providers, they strike a fair compromise. Until someone can propose another fair compromise, and get it legislated, Section 512 of the DMCA is the law we have.

Is Copyright law not working for the RIAA? is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend

§ 505. Remedies for infringement: Costs and attorney’s fees

In any civil action under this title, the court in its discretion may allow the recovery of full costs by or against any party other than the United States or an officer thereof. Except as otherwise provided by this title, the court may also award a reasonable attorney’s fee to the prevailing party as part of the costs.

This grant of attorneys fees is not automatic, instead a court must determine whether the grant of fees is reasonable.

In the recent case of UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Veoh, 2010 WL 1407316 (C.D.Cal., April 6, 2010), the video sharing site Veoh sought recovery of its attorneys fees after it had prevailed in its defense of the copyright claims brought by the copyright owners UMG. Veoh had been granted partial summary judgment on the grounds of its meeting all the requirements for 512(c) safe harbor immunity. Despite prevailing, in this recent ruling the Court held that Veoh was not entitled to the recovery of its fees because Veoh could not prove that “UMG’s legal challenge was improper, in bad faith, or contrary to the purposes of the Copyright Act.”

Here’s the important section discussing this holding from this short opinion:

Giving full consideration to the purposes of the Copyright Act, the Court concludes that Veoh is not entitled to recover attorneys’ fees. “[T]here is typically no award of fees in cases involving issues of first impression or advancing claims that were neither frivolous nor objectively unreasonable.” 4 Nimmer on Copyright § 14.10. Both Veoh and UMG advanced positions that were neither frivolous nor objectively unreasonable.

I understand that Veoh was recently acquired by Qlipso.

Awarding of Attorneys Fees for Copyright Cases Not Automatic is a post from: Cyberlaw Central

©2012 Cyberlaw Central.

Share on Facebook |  Twitter |  Stumbleupon |  Digg |  Reddit |  Email to friend