ISOC-NY NOTICE BOARD

Tagged: law Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 4:07 pm on 04/12/2012 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: BLIP ( 6 ), brooklyn ( 13 ), hackathon ( 17 ), law   

  Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic Legal Hackathon 

  On April 15, 2012, the Brooklyn Law Incubator & Policy Clinic (BLIP) hosted their first-ever Legal Hackathon. An all-day event, the Hackathon explorde how technology can improve the law and vice versa.

  Homepage: http://legalhackathon.johnrandall.com/wordpress/
  Twitter : @BLIPClinic | #LegalHack
  Questions : http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/questions/ Instance: NYCHack
  Webcast: http://legalhackathon.blipclinic.org/live-stream/

  KEYNOTES

  Andrew Raziej

  Tim Wu

  Nina Paley

  Nick Allard

  Tim Hwang

  PANELS

  Hacking the Act: Why Do SOPA and PIPA Matter? Speakers: Lon Jacobs (News Corp), Derek Bambauer (BLS Professor), Robert Levine (Journalist/Author), and Amyt Eckstein (Moses & Singer)

  Government 2.0: A Primer on Crowdsourced Policymaking and Fostering Civic Engagement Through Technology.
  Speakers: Art Chang (Tipping Point), Sherwin Siy (Public Knowledge), John Bergmayer (Public Knowledge)

  Plus Andrew McLaughin (Tumblr), Tim Wu (FTC), Nina Paley (Question Copyright), Tim Hwang (Robot Robot and Hwang), and Jonathan Askin (BLS Professor and director of the BLIP Clinic)

  HACK THE ACT

  A week-long competition beginning the day of the Hackathon, interested teams will tackle a discreet issue of IP policy and collaboratively propose a new policy reform through online collaboration tool Docracy.

  WORKSHOPS

  Docracy is challenging participants to use their service to translate a legalese agreement into plain English using their service.

  PriView is hacking an assessment standard to help people better understand the privacy policies they deal with every day.

  Wikipedia will discuss the role of crowdsourcing in legal research

  WhyNot is brainstorming how to create a platform that will crowdsource the next Mayor of NYC.

  The Calyx Institute is challenging participants to hack a model privacy policy for Internet service providers.

  Creative Rights for Creative Children (CREATE) is hacking a new IP curriculum for students that properly accounts for creative privileges like fair use.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Δ

  This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 4:43 am on 02/27/2012 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: copyright ( 86 ), law, patry, policy ( 40 ), webcast ( 114 )   

  Video: Bill Patry “How to Fix Copyright” @dmwnews #DMFE12 Social Music Summit 

  Cory Doctorow has described Bill Patry’s book ‘How to Fix Copyright’ as “incandescent”. He also suggests that Bill is angry, something Bill himself denies. In this Social Music Summit ‘fireside chat’, in which Jim Griffin digs into Patry’s background, one can discern just how laid back – considering the cultural bomb he has just dropped – he really is.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 4:02 am on 12/13/2011 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: CIS Stanford ( 3 ), copyright ( 86 ), DNS ( 17 ), internet freedom ( 69 ), law, netfreedom ( 6 ), open internet ( 23 ), paul vixie, PIPA ( 5 ), SOPA ( 11 ), stanford ( 6 )   

  Video: What’s wrong with SOPA @StanfordCIS #SOPA #PIPA #netfreedom 

  On December 7 2011 the Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School hosted a panel discussion – What’s Wrong With SOPA? – on the evils of the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) currently before Congress.

  Panelists:

  • Mark Lemley – William H. Neukom Professor of Law, Stanford Law School
  • Josh Mendelsohn – Partner, Hattery
  • David Ulevitch – Founder & CEO, OpenDNS
  • Paul Vixie – Chairman and Chief Scientist, Internet Systems Consortium
  • Fred von Lohmann – Senior Copyright Counsel, Google
  • Albert Wenger – Partner, Union Square Ventures

  Moderator:

  • Anthony Falzone – Executive Director, Fair Use Project at the Center for Internet and Society

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 1:18 am on 04/20/2011 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: copyright ( 86 ), email ( 2 ), law   

  Judge rules non-creative email not copyrightable #freeculture 

  OUTLAW.COM reports a recent court decision in Los Angeles where one Kenneth Stern had sued for copyright infringement after an allegedly libelous email to a listserv was leaked to its subject.

  Judge Dolly Gee said Stern’s email lacked originality and a copyright certificate he had obtained from the US Copyright Office was invalid as a consequence. The reproduction of Stern’s email was legitimate as it was in order to represent what Stern had written and not because it was a creative expression.

  ” [Stern’s] listserv post … displays no creativity whatsoever – its content is dictated solely by functional considerations. As [Stern] expression of his idea is indistinguishable from the idea itself, it is not entitled to copyright protection.” judge Dolly Gee said.

  Stern argued that he had considered alternatives to the email’s wording, but the judge said that “trivial” alternatives did not show that the finished email merited copyright protection.

  Judge Dee, stating that Stern had sought litigation in bad faith, awarded summary judgement for the defendants, and costs to be assessed.

  • The decision

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 11:57 pm on 03/07/2011 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: domain seizures, ICE ( 4 ), law, USG ( 42 )   

  Video: Rep. Zoe Lofgren vs Victoria Espinel on domain takedowns 

  On Mar 1 2011 the United States House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet held a hearing “Oversight of the Office of the U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator” wherein they grilled U.S. Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator Victoria Espinel, aka White House ‘IP Czar’. In the course of the proceedings Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D – CA) took Espinel to task on several counts concerning the recent ICE “Operation In Our Sites” domain seizures – due process; ignoring DMCA provisions; first amendment rights; fair use considerations; plus bumbled operations, receiving little more than platitudes in response. Video is here or below.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  joly is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    joly 12:08 am on 03/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

    • 3/4 Mike Masnick Rep. Lofgren Challenges IP Czar On Legality Of Domain Seizures (Techdirt)
    • 3/7 Mike Masnick Rep. Lofgren Tells Seized Sites They Should Sue The Gov’t For Defamation (Techdirt)
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 2:47 am on 02/16/2011 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: COICA, copyright ( 86 ), DHS ( 2 ), ICE ( 4 ), law, us senate ( 3 ), USG ( 42 )   

  U.S. Senate Hearing on seizing websites – 2/16 

  In contrast to Feb 15’s Hillary Clinton speech about Internet Freedom on Feb. 16 2011,  the Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing entitled “Targeting Websites Dedicated To Stealing American Intellectual Property“. This was a followup to last year’s shelving of the COICA Act and the recent DHS-ICE site seizures – which some consider to be of dubious legality. Witnesses include representatives of the Authors Guild, Go Daddy, Verizon, and Visa. There was be a webcast.

  Witness Statements

  Tom Adams – Rosetta Stone Inc
  Scott Turow – Authors Guild
  Christine Jones – Go Daddy
  Thomas Dailey – Verizon
  Denise Yee – Visa

  Member Statements
  Patrick Leahy Chair
  Chuck Grassley
  Al Franken

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  joly is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    joly 2:06 pm on 02/16/2011 Permalink | Reply

    • Wendy Seltzer Exposing the Flaws of Censorship by domain name (IEEE)
    • 2/15 Abigail Phillips What Congress Can Learn from the Recent ICE Seizures (EFF)
    • 2/16 By coincidence, Torrentfreak reports today that a ham-fisted child pornography related site seizure just resulted in collateral damage to an additional 84k sites.
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 8:57 am on 01/12/2011 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: copyright ( 86 ), DNS ( 17 ), ICE ( 4 ), law   

  Is there such a thing as “criminal contributory infringement”? #ICE #copyright #dns #freeculture 

  Mike Masnick of techdirt argues that recent seizures of domain names by Homeland Security’s Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) group have dubious legal validity. Even the Supreme Court’s embrace of the concept of “inducement as contributory infringement” in the Grokster case didn’t contemplate it as criminal activity.

  The actual seizure itself was handled clumsily, using outside contractors. The tracking of visitors to the seized sites contrary to government policy led many observers to initially conclude the whole thing was an elaborate hoax. This was compounded by the ICE delaying public statements so they could make a splash on “Black Monday”. Techdirt further noted in December just how inept and flimsy the case against one site – torrent-finder – was. If the standard – commercial sites that link to web items that advocate or facilitate filesharing – was applied across the board, the ICE would have to seize a large portion of the entire web!

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  joly is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    joly 7:28 pm on 01/19/2011 Permalink | Reply

    Jan 19:

    ICE director John Morton said Tuesday. In “every single case,” federal investigators were able to obtain materials that infringe copyright from the websites that had their domain names seized, Morton said during a speech at the Congressional Internet Caucus’ State of the ‘Net conference.

    The operators of Torrent-finder.com, a BitTorrent search engine, and two hip-hop music blogs, have questioned why their domain names were seized. ICE and the DOJ “spent a lot of time” examining the websites, and the agencies did not honor all of the requests to take action that they received from copyright holders, Morton said.

    The owners of those sites can challenge the seizures in court, Morton added. The seizures have also started a lively debate about copyright protections in the U.S., and “that’s a good thing,” he added.

    [Source: Computerworld

    • 

      joly 3:57 am on 02/08/2011 Permalink | Reply

      The video of this is now online:

      Morton starts talking about domain takedowns at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWZY_LujUhc&feature=player_detailpage#t=328s

      • In all cases they obtained illicit goods via the sites before obtaining warrants.
      • He says they served the registries.
      • All seizures can be challenged in federal court.
      • After they seized 8 sites in June, 81 more sites shut down voluntarily.
      • One re-emerged under a different name. Working with UK police it was again shutdown.
      • Seizure banners have received 25m hits. Some sites got more hits after seizure.
      • After 131 referrals from industry they enforced 81 in November. (81 obviously a magic number)
      • Pirates don’t pay taxes or health care, invest in America.
      • Criticism provides publicity which is helpful..
      • Not interested in limiting speech or due process
      • Internet is not above the law.

      Then, in answer to question, about whther this set a bad example for Internet freedom in other countries.

      • All except 5 sites were selling counterfeit hard goods.
      • In the case of the 5 sites, special care taken to establish 1) content is illicit, and 2) knowingly supplied, in order to obtain court order.
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 4:02 am on 12/15/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: eff ( 9 ), law, privacy ( 58 )   

  EFF: Appeals Court Holds that Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment #privacy 

  Kevin Bankston of the EFF reports a landmark decision issued today in the criminal appeal of U.S. v. Warshak, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the government must have a search warrant before it can secretly seize and search emails stored by email service providers. Closely tracking arguments made by EFF in its amicus brief, the court found that email users have the same reasonable expectation of privacy in their stored email as they do in their phone calls and postal mail.

  The court held,

  Given the fundamental similarities between email and traditional forms of communication [like postal mail and telephone calls], it would defy common sense to afford emails lesser Fourth Amendment protection…. It follows that email requires strong protection under the Fourth Amendment; otherwise the Fourth Amendment would prove an ineffective guardian of private communication, an essential purpose it has long been recognized to serve…. [T]he police may not storm the post office and intercept a letter, and they are likewise forbidden from using the phone system to make a clandestine recording of a telephone call–unless they get a warrant, that is. It only stands to reason that, if government agents compel an ISP to surrender the contents of a subscriber’s emails, those agents have thereby conducted a Fourth Amendment search, which necessitates compliance with the warrant requirement..

  The decision essentially invalidates the Stored Communications Act, so it will either be appealed up to the Supreme Court, or Congress shall have to do some fixing.

  •  Decision pdf

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  joly is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    joly 2:33 pm on 12/15/2010 Permalink | Reply

    Reaction:

    • 12/14 Sam Diaz Appeals court: Email communication is protected under the Fourth Amendment
    • 12/16 Larry Deedes Cloud Users and Providers Win Big Privacy Victory – U.S. v. Warshak
  • 

    joly 5:20 pm on 12/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

    In another 4th Amendment court decision this week the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Obama administration’s contention that the government is never required to get a court warrant to obtain cell-site information that mobile-phone carriers retain on their customers.

    • 12/15 David Kravets Court Rebuffs Obama on Warrantless Cell-Site Tracking (Wired)
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 2:53 pm on 12/08/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: fcc ( 86 ), genachowski ( 2 ), law, net neutrality ( 41 )   

  CommLawBlog: Genachowski between rock and hard place on Net Neutrality #fcc #netneutrality 

  As the FCC’s vote on Chairman Julius Genachowski’s proposed Open Internet order approaches on Dec 21, Christine E. Goepp of CommLawBlog has written a brief analysis that concludes he and his staff’s options are very narrow, with opposing forces on either side that are unlikely to compromise. Even if Commissioners Copps and Clyburn compromise on Title II and go along, congressional support and judicial validation are a remote prospect.

  She concludes:

  .. the future of the agency’s regulatory clout looks very different depending on whether it can or can’t regulate IP-based communications. Clearly, the FCC’s practical ability to regulate services that perform telecommunications (Title II) and television (Title III) functions is likely to shrink as these types of services become increasingly delivered over IP connections. The Chairman’s legal staff is working hard to frame a case for delegated authority over ISPs that doesn’t rely on reclassification or Congress; but it doesn’t have a lot to work with.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 1:48 am on 11/29/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: copyright ( 86 ), dmca ( 6 ), google ( 30 ), law, viacom, webcast ( 114 ), youtube ( 3 )   

  Video: Why Viacom v. YouTube Matters (Besides the $1 Billion) 

  The Copyright Society of the U.S.A. New York Chapter Panel: Why Viacom v. YouTube Matters (Besides the $1 Billion) at the Princeton Club NYC on Nov 18 2010. While YouTube won a summary judgement in this case, it is under appeal. The panel was tasked, rather than making appellate cases, with discussing the implications of the decision. Nevertheless much of the meat of the arguments was chewed at this lunchtime event.

  Panel: Cliff Sloan (Partner, Skadden Arps), Daniel Blackman (Co-founder, Howcast, and formerly of Google), Michael Kwun (Of Counsel, Keker & Van Nest), Thomas Sydnor (Director of the Center for the Study of Digital Property at The Progress & Freedom Foundation), Moderated by Professor James Grimmelmann (New York Law School)

  
  download: iPod | mp3

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  joly is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    joly 1:48 am on 11/29/2010 Permalink | Reply

    YouTube links:

    02:10 James Grimmelmann
    09:14 Thomas Sydner
    21:58 Cliff Sloan
    30:08 Michael Kwun
    40:49 Daniel Blackman
    50:21 Q&A

• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 12:47 pm on 06/28/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: bilski ( 4 ), law, patent ( 11 ), scotus   

  Supreme Court on Bilski – no but whatever.. 

  The Supreme Court opinion in re:Bilski is in.  With typical ambivalence it upheld the federal court’s decision while rejecting it’s reasoning, replacing the machine-or-transformation test with essentially no test at all. The Court rejected the patent just because it was an “abstract idea”. From the syllabus:

  The machine-or-transformation test is not the sole test for patent eligibility under §101. Although that test may be a useful and important clue or investigative tool, it is not the sole test for deciding whether an invention is a patent-eligible “process” under §101. In holding to the contrary, the Federal Circuit violated two principles of statutory interpretation: Courts “‘should not read into the patent laws limitations and conditions which the legislature has not expressed,’” Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U. S. 175, 182, and, “[u]nless otherwise defined, ‘words will be interpreted as taking their ordinary, contemporary, common meaning,’” ibid. The Court is unaware of any ordinary, contemporary, common meaning of “process” that would require it to be tied to a machine or the transformation of an article.

  . . .

  Because petitioners’ patent application can be rejected under the Court’s precedents on the unpatentability of abstract ideas, the Court need not define further what constitutes a patentable “process,” beyond pointing to the definition of that term provided in §100(b) and looking to the guideposts in Benson, Flook, and Diehr. Nothing in today’s opinion should be read as endorsing the Federal Circuit’s past interpretations of §101.

  So this would seem to leave the whole question of software patents as wide open as ever.

  Opinion is at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-964.pdf

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  Seth Johnson is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    Seth Johnson 2:26 pm on 07/03/2010 Permalink | Reply

    The machine-or-transformation test is a hack that diverts attention from the right understanding of software and patentability. I actually see this ruling as helpful in its not relying on that. It essentially pushes us to make the argument against software patents based on their being abstract ideas. By finding the machine-or-transformation principle not sufficient and by not finding an exclusion on business method patents, the court actually pushes us to making the right point.

    Below are comments I posted on the following article. I posted a couple of followup responses there:
    http://technologizer.com/2010/06/29/supreme-court-leaves-software-patent-issues-unanswered/#comments

    Software patents are patents not just on abstract ideas, but on *pure* abstract ideas. By pure I don’t mean “extremely” — I mean “independent of empirical facts or particulars,” like math.

    The general purpose logic processor does *pure* logical operations; it follows that the instructions provided to that processor are likewise *pure* logic. However, what translates a pure logical algorithm or process to something of specific use is the devices you attach to the logic processor. It is in principle perfectly conceivable that the *exact same* set of logic instructions could control *entirely different* processes, depending on what devices you attach.

    And while higher-level, human-readable code uses language that humans can relate to specific things or uses in the empirical world (variable names like “PartNo” or “EmployeeID” or “Chemical1Proportion,” or function names like “InitiateStirring” or “TurnOnBlender”), at bottom the compiled code provided to the processor is pure logical abstraction.

    The point is, the software is in principle not patentable, though it may be true that a particular empirical process that that code is being used to control, is patentable. But what decides that is the empirical process as such, not the pure algorithm expressed by the code.

    So I see this ruling as simply excluding the easier resolution to the software patent issue (an approach not really on point and not really addressing the nature of the issue of software patents) that sees software patents becoming untenable along with the invalidation of business method patents, as well as the notion that what makes something patentable is that it is a machine or a transformation.

    What makes software unpatentable is not really directly related to either of those points, but rather to the fact that it is *pure* abstraction. You don’t have to say patents only cover machines and transformations to eliminate software patents. Instead, all you have to do is show that software is always abstract because the nature of the logic processor is inherently pure — it deals only in bits/numbers and logical and mathematical operations and algorithms — and when one says those numbers and algorithms are intended to refer to or apply to something more, what you’re really saying is that there’s also an empirical process, alongside the pure code, which is the actual process which may be patentable or not.

    The distinction that counts isn’t between machines or transformations and software; it’s between pure abstraction, such as logic and math (which is definitively abstract because it is pure), and plain vanilla abstraction in the form of general principles about empirical reality, such as physical laws (which is a kind of abstraction regarding which the lines between patentability and non-patentability are harder to draw — the machine-or-transformation test is an example that gets kind of close, but doesn’t really make the right point).

  • 

    Seth Johnson 5:06 pm on 07/07/2010 Permalink | Reply

    Now see what’s happened?

    USPTO, post-Bilski: A strong presumption against abstract ideas:
    http://diffbot.com/read/451169/1977394454

• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 10:34 pm on 04/20/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: copyright ( 86 ), database ( 2 ), event ( 25 ), law, open ( 21 )   

  Open Source Database Licensing Panel – NYC 4/21 

  The Institute for Information Law & Policy and the International
  Intellectual Property Society present: Open Source Database Licensing

  Date: Wednesday, April 21, 2010
  Time: 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m.
  Location: NY Law School 185 West Broadway NYC Room W201
  RSVP: Naomi Allen at naomi.allen*at*nyls.edu. Refreshments will be served.

  Database owners are increasingly seeking ways to make their data
  available so that others can contribute to and build on their work. This
  “open data” movement emphasizes the importance of sharing data for both
  scientific development and humanitarian response. The willingness of
  database owners to make their data available for re-use depends on their
  ability to impose conditions on that release, which requires
  consideration of the varying levels of copyright protection afforded to
  databases across jurisdictions.

  Please join us for a panel presentation focusing on the challenges
  associated with balancing the advantages of “open data” with the need
  for database owners to impose conditions on release. The speakers will
  address the current state of copyright protection afforded to databases
  and strategies for encouraging database sharing.

  Panelists:
  Janelle C. Bonanno, Graduate Research Fellow, New York Law School
  Christopher Cotter 3L, New York Law School
  Rachel DeLetto, Graduate Research Fellow, New York Law School
  Cynthia Grady 2L, New York Law School
  Chris Holmes, The Open Planning Project; Chair, Project Steering Committee, GeoServer
  Molly Beutz Land, Associate Professor of Law, New York Law School
  James Vasile, Software Freedom Law Center; Board Member, Open Source Matters

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 9:21 pm on 04/14/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: law, privacy ( 58 )   

  Digital Due Process Coalition demands reform of ePrivacy statutes 

  The Digital Due Process Coalition brings to gether such unlikely bedfellows as CDT, Google, AT&T, Microsoft, Yahoo!, AOL and the ACLU, along with some lawyers that ISOC-NY webcast viewers will be well familiar with like Susan Crawford, James Grimmelmann, Frank Pasquale, & David Post, united in the purpose of advocating reform of The Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA) of 1986.

  The ECPA is the statute under which the federal government can snoop into your email, and enforce co-operation in its efforts from ISPs. The move to cloud computing has nullified many of the protections in the act, and providers are facing increasing demands for access from law enforcement. The DDPC is demanding an overhaul of the statute, and a return to due process = warrants before they hand over users missives.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  joly is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    joly 9:23 pm on 04/14/2010 Permalink | Reply

    See Lauren Weinstein’s comments here.

• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 9:31 pm on 04/13/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: app ( 7 ), event ( 25 ), law, NYU ( 28 )   

  Mobile App Legal Concerns Panel – New York Law School 4/20 

  Ever since the Apple launched the App Store on the iPhone, people have been crazy about mobile apps. As a result, apps are now widely available on the Android, Blackberry, and many other mobile phone platforms. A developer must consider issues concerning contract law, intellectual property protection, corporate law and user privacy when creating a new app. This panel will discuss the legal concerns that every mobile app developer should consider before bringing a new app to market.

  Moderator: Jonathan Lutzky, Esq., Masur Law

  Room: W201 6-8pm, Event begins at 6:30, Tuesday 4/20

  Panelists: Simon Buckingham,  Mobile Streams Appitalism

  Dan Cohen, DaDa Mobile and Playme.com

  Hugh Dornbush, omgicu

  Kunal Gupta, Polar Mobile

  RSVP to Brian Daitzman: brian.daitzman@law.nyls.edu

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 6:25 am on 04/02/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: email ( 2 ), law, privacy ( 58 )   

  Attorney/Client Privilege Trumps Company E-Mail Surveillance 

  The New Jersey Supreme Court on Tuesday gave workers in New Jersey an assurance of privacy in using workplace computers to talk with their lawyers, ruling a company’s e-mail-monitoring policy yields to the attorney-client privilege.

  Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, writing for the unanimous court in Stengart v. Loving Care Agency Inc., A-16-09, said a plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit against her employer had a reasonable expectation that e-mails to and from her attorney on her personal Yahoo account would be private, although transmitted via a company-owned laptop.

  While finding the employer’s policy ambiguous in its reach, Rabner said that “even a more clearly written company manual — that is, a policy that banned all personal computer use and provided unambiguous notice that an employer could retrieve and read an employee’s attorney-client communications, if accessed on a personal, password-protected e-mail account using the company’s computer system — would not be enforceable.”

  Via Privilege Trumps Company E-Mail Surveillance.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 6:11 pm on 03/06/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: CRB ( 2 ), law, Live365, USG ( 42 ), webcasting ( 4 )   

  Live365 suit to oust Copyright Royalty Board lives, just! 

  Kevin Goldberg reports on the ongoing case in which webcaster Live365 is challenging the constitutionality of the Copyright Royalty Board (CRB), and with it the recently confirmed statutory webcasting rates.

  Last year an opinion by Judge Kavanaugh opened the door. Live 365 jumped on it, using an arcane argument over the method of appointment of the CRB. They filed for a preliminary injunction.

  At a recent hearing Judge Walton rejected that request. He did not throw out the case, however, despite his opinion that there was a “substantial” chance of it’s failure.

  Kevin notes that it is likely that, if the case proceeds, it could eventually end up again in the hands of the more sympathetic Judge Kavanaugh.

  There is no “bright line” to follow in such cases with the Supreme Court having ultimately decided similar conflicts on a case-by-case basis.

  Department of the Inferiors? Copyright Royalty Board Judges Are OK With That. : CommLawBlog.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 4:46 am on 02/25/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: australia ( 8 ), copyright ( 86 ), isp ( 4 ), law   

  Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy exoneration 

  The Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft AFACT today lodged an appeal against the legal judgment which found Australian Internet provider iiNet was not responsible for illegal movie downloads by its customers, arguing the Federal Court had erred on 15 grounds

  “The court found large scale copyright infringements proven, that iiNet knew they were occurring, that iiNet had the contractual and technical capacity to stop them and iiNet did nothing about them,” said Neil Gane, executive director of AFACT.”In line with previous case law, this would have amounted to authorisation of copyright infringement.”

  via Movie studios appeal against iiNet piracy ruling.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  joly is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    joly 5:32 pm on 02/25/2010 Permalink | Reply

    More details of AFACT’s grounds for appeal are here.

    Central to the appeal is an argument that the judge applied an incorrect test for whether iiNet “authorised” the copyright infringement.

    Also AFACT will:

    • seek to overturn the ruling that iiNet had a repeat infringer policy that allowed it to claim safe harbour under the Copyright Act.
      • challenge Justice Cowdroy over his reasons for rejecting evidence.
      • raise further questions over what could be inferred from iiNet’s choice of witnesses. The film industry had questioned in the trial why staff with more intimate technical knowledge of the iiNet network were not called on to give evidence.
    • question the number of infringements, which was a contentious issue in the case.
  • 

    joly 3:45 am on 02/26/2010 Permalink | Reply

    I thank Paul Brooks for the following info:

    Five ways AFACT lost-the-iiNet case

    I won’t quote the whole article, but one section jumped out to me as being of special relevence to this group (emphasis added by me):

    ”

    2. The time didn’t fit the crime

    AFACT put forward an argument that because iiNet had failed to stop users infringing copyright on its network, it had “failed to take reasonable steps” to gain protection under safe harbour provisions of the Copyright Act.

    But as John Fairbairn, partner at Clayton Utz points out, AFACT “held out” on defining what reasonable steps would have been beyond disconnection of a customer.

    As such, there were “no other reasonable steps” the judge could focus on.

    The Court found that iiNet’s only power to prevent infringement – to terminate users – was not a relevant power under the Copyright Act.

    Justice Cowdroy then found that cutting off access was not a reasonable step.

    “The Court does not consider that warning and termination of subscriber accounts on the basis of AFACT Notices is a reasonable step,” Cowdroy’s judgement said, as it would “also prevent that person or persons from using the internet for all the non-infringing uses.”

    In doing so, Cowdroy gave full appreciation to the significance of internet access and what it means to Australians, and the role of the courts in determining infringement.
    …and later…

    ”

    “AFACT’s notices were found to be defective because they did not establish copyright infringement as AFACT kept its methodology secret, they did not have any assurance of their veracity or indemnify iiNet for reliance, and they did not make clear AFACT’s right to give them on behalf of copyright owners,” said Australian Digital Alliance’s Dawes.

    “Thus, iiNet was entitled to be sceptical about the claims being made. Therefore it had no ‘knowledge’ of the alleged infringements by its users.”

    Determinations of infringement are complex, Cowdroy’s judgement said, and should only be made by a court. To do otherwise, he said, would be “highly problematic.”
    ”

    P.

  • 

    joly 5:18 pm on 03/18/2010 Permalink | Reply

    News comes today that iiNet have filed a notice of contention in the appeal

    http://www.zdnet.com.au/iinet-contests-cooper-copyright-judgement-339301882.htm

    The first issue iiNet is contending relates to Section 112E of the Copyright Act 1968, which states that a carriage service provider that “facilitates … a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in an audio-visual item merely because another person uses the facilities”.

    Cowdroy had said in his decision that he was bound to rule in line with the 2006 case, Universal Music Australia versus Cooper copyright case, in which the Full Court — on appeal — decided a critical factor was whether the service provider had knowledge of copyright breaches occurring on its facilities.

    The judge found that iiNet did have knowledge that infringements were occurring on its facilities, therefore the protections under 112E “ceased to have operation”.

    Cowdroy’s overarching decision was that iiNet had not authorised its customers’ infringements, which meant in terms of his final decision the point was moot. Yet it may come into play in the upcoming appeal process in which the legal teams of both sides will contest iiNet’s alleged authorisation of its customers’ breaches.

    The second point of contention was Cowdroy’s decision that privacy provisions under the Telecommunications Act did not prevent iiNet from using its customer information to assist AFACT’s investigations. The question here was whether iiNet had the power to prevent infringements on its network and whether it took “reasonable” steps to prevent this from occurring.

• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 3:40 am on 02/23/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: carl malamud, iilp ( 2 ), law, NYU ( 28 )   

  The Law.Gov Movement: Panel Discussion @NYU – weds 2/24/10 

  Wednesday, February 24th, 6:15-8pm
  The Law.Gov Movement: A Panel Discussion
  New York Law School
  Room A700

  Join the NYU IILP as they welcome Internet pioneer Carl Malamud, President and Founder of Public.Resource.Org, to discuss the Law.Gov movement and it’s opportunities for citizens to help change the way we distribute America’s Operating System.  He will be joined by distinguished Information Law scholars Helen Nissenbaum and Nicholas Bramble.

  This event is open to the public.  Please RSVP to Naomi Allen at naomi.allen@nyls.edu.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...
   
• 

  Internet Society New York Chapter 9:05 pm on 02/03/2010 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: copyright ( 86 ), isp ( 4 ), law   

  Australian court absolves ISP from copyright policing 

  http://tinyurl.com/y9puvds

  The studios had hired an online investigator firm to intercept
  BitTorrent traffic over 59 weeks and record instances of iiNet users
  downloading pirated movies.

  The barrister for the studios, Tony Bannon, said that iiNet failed to
  take any ‘‘reasonable steps’’ to combat copyright infringement.

  He said iiNet’s practice of forwarding infringement notices to police
  and stating in its terms and conditions that illegal downloading was
  not permitted – while not enforcing this rule – did not constitute
  reasonable steps.

  However, iiNet’s legal counsel, Richard Cobden, said privacy
  provisions in the Telecommunications Act prevented it from forwarding
  the studios’ infringement notices to customers.

  Cobden said the studios were trying to place an ‘‘unreasonable
  burden’’ on ISPs and that ‘‘we will not take on the rights holders’
  outsourcing of their rights enforcement’’.

  iiNet argued that it was not required by law to act on ‘‘mere
  allegations’’ of copyright infringement, that customers were innocent
  until proven guilty in court, and that the case was like suing the
  electricity company for things people do with their electricity.

  In a summary of his 200-page judgment read out in court this morning,
  Justice Cowdroy said the evidence established that iiNet had done no
  more than to provide an internet service to its users.

  He found that, while iiNet had knowledge of infringements occurring
  and did not act to stop them, such findings did not necessitate a
  finding of authorisation.

  He said an ISP such as iiNet provided a legitimate communication
  facility, which was neither intended nor designed to infringe
  copyright.

  “iiNet is not responsible if an iiNet user uses that system to bring
  about copyright infringement … the law recognises no positive
  obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another,” Justice
  Cowdroy said.

  Share this:

  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)

  Like this:

  Like Loading...

  joly is discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

    joly 11:13 pm on 02/03/2010 Permalink | Reply

    ISOC Australia has issued a media release applauding the ruling:

    ISOC-AU applauds today’s decision of the Australian Federal Court in
    the case of Roadshow Films Pty Limited v iiNET Limited. The Court
    found that iiNet, by failing to take any steps to stop infringing conduct,
    did not ‘authorise’ copyright infringement by certain iiNet users.. iiNet
    did not sanction, approve or countenance copyright infringement; they
    did no more than provide an Internet service to their customers.

    ISOC-AU believes the Internet is for everyone. ‘The Internet is an
    essential part of how Australians live, work and play‘, said Narelle
    Clark, Vice President of the Internet Society of Australia (ISOC-AU) ‘and
    the Court has confirmed that ISPs are not required to be the
    gatekeepers of Internet use‘.

    ISOC-AU also welcomes the finding of the Court that, because iiNet did
    have a repeat infringer policy, they would have been entitled to the
    protection offered by the ‘safe harbour’ provisions of the copyright
    legislation.

    ISOC-AU recognises that people should be rewarded for their creative
    endeavours and that other models may need to be used or developed to
    reward content creation and distribution. We also support the right of
    all to due process under law, particularly to ensure that Internet users
    are not arbitrarily cut off from Internet access.

    and also a couple of links:

  • Full text of the judgement
  • iiNet’s response
  • the film industry’s response