http://www.odeo.com/channels/373-techlawadvisor-via-Global-Records-Retention-in-Google-Reader no en 40 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:51:09 -0700 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:51:09 -0700 http://www.odeo.com/episodes/25093796-iphone-t-pain-app-reports-on-Google-Books-EU-riff-http-bit-ly-fSOah-listen-here-http-bit-ly-jBsdZ-autotunethenews iphone t-pain app reports on Google Books / EU riff -> http://bit.ly/fSOah <- listen here: http://bit.ly/jBsdZ #autotunethenews iphone t-pain app reports on Google Books / EU riff -> http://bit.ly/fSOah <- listen here: http://bit.ly/jBsdZ #autotunethenews iphone t-pain app reports on Google Books / EU riff -> http://bit.ly/fSOah <- listen here: http://bit.ly/jBsdZ #autotunethenews tag:odeo.com,2009-09-08,25093796 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 12:51:09 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/24772863-Forensic-Computer-Investigations-For-Your-Divorce Legal Briefs On Divorce is a video podcast series providing viewers with a discussion on timely news and insight on current trends impacting divorce. This installment of Legal Briefs On Divorce is an interview with John S. Eory, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Divorce Group, and Rob Kleeger, Managing Director of the Intelligence Group.   Mr. Kleeger conducts digital forensic investigations for divorcing parties in order to gather electronically stored information and put it in a format useful to a divorce case. Mr. Eory and Mr. Kleeger discuss the reasons for digital forensic investigations and what type of information can be gathered for a divorce case. Legal Briefs On Divorce With John Eory & Rob Kleeger from Stark & Stark on Vimeo. Legal Briefs On Divorce is a video podcast series providing viewers with a discussion on timely news and insight on current trends impacting divorce. This installment of Legal Briefs On Divorce is an interview with John S. Eory, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Divorce Group, and Rob Kleeger, Managing Director of the Intelligence Group.   Mr. Kleeger conducts digital forensic investigations for divorcing parties in order to gather electronically stored information and put it in a format useful to a divorce case. Mr. Eory and Mr. Kleeger discuss the reasons for digital forensic investigations and what type of information can be gathered for a divorce case. Legal Briefs On Divorce With John Eory & Rob Kleeger from Stark & Stark on Vimeo. Legal Briefs On Divorce is a video podcast series providing viewers with a discussion on timely news and insight on current trends impacting divorce. This installment of Legal Briefs On Divorce is an interview with John S. Eory, Shareholder in Stark & Stark's Divorce Group, and Rob Kleeger, Managing Director of the Intelligence Group.   Mr. Kleeger conducts digital forensic investigations for divorcing parties in order to gather electronically stored information and put it in a format useful to a divorce case. Mr. Eory and Mr. Kleeger discuss the reasons for digital forensic investigations and what type of information can be gathered for a divorce case. Legal Briefs On Divorce With John Eory & Rob Kleeger from Stark & Stark on Vimeo. tag:odeo.com,2009-07-01,24772863 Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:06:55 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader divorce http://www.odeo.com/episodes/24577988-ACLU-Human-Gene-Patents-Infringe-Speech The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Patent and Trademark Office and a research company awarded exclusive rights to human genes known to detect early signs of breast or ovarian cancer. The group claims the patents violate speech by restricting research. The novel case, if successful, opens the door to challenges of a host of other patented genes: about one-fifth of the human genome is covered under patent applications and claims. The ACLU’s case is believed to be the first to challenge a patented gene under a civil rights allegation. According to the federal lawsuit, (.pdf) filed in the Southern District of New York, the First Amendment is at stake because the patents are so broad they bar scientists from examining and comparing the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes at the center of the dispute. In short, the patents issued more than a decade ago cover any new scientific methods of looking at these human genes that might be developed by others. “All identifying of differences, includ... The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Patent and Trademark Office and a research company awarded exclusive rights to human genes known to detect early signs of breast or ovarian cancer. The group claims the patents violate speech by restricting research. The novel case, if successful, opens the door to challenges of a host of other patented genes: about one-fifth of the human genome is covered under patent applications and claims. The ACLU’s case is believed to be the first to challenge a patented gene under a civil rights allegation. According to the federal lawsuit, (.pdf) filed in the Southern District of New York, the First Amendment is at stake because the patents are so broad they bar scientists from examining and comparing the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes at the center of the dispute. In short, the patents issued more than a decade ago cover any new scientific methods of looking at these human genes that might be developed by others. “All identifying of differences, including those that are found in the future by anyone to correlate with an increased risk of cancer, are patented. Myriad did not create any of the differences found in the genes. Nature did,” said the suit, referencing patent holder Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City. The ACLU, representing dozens of patients and researchers, said the case challenges the legality and constitutionality of granting patents covering the “most basic element of every person’s individuality.” The civil rights group maintains that, “What is patented is the abstract idea that nature has made the two genes different in a manner that increases that person’s risk” of cancer. The patents at issue gave Myriad Genetics a virtual monopoly on such predictive testing for breast and ovarian cancer, according to the suit. Women who fear they may be at an increased risk are barred from having anyone look at their BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes or interpret them except for the patent holder, which charges about $3,000 per test. Myriad, which had issued a cease-and-desist order to Yale University scientists researching the genes,  said it would prevail in the case. Richard Marsh, Myriad’s general counsel, said in a telephone interview that the patent office “has granted tens of thousands of genetic and genetic-related patents which cover a large number of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products. Myriad strongly believes that its patents are valid and enforceable, and will be upheld by the courts.” About 10 percent of women with breast cancer are likely to have a mutation inherited from their parents in the genes at issue, according to the suit. Patents for exclusive genetic testing have also been issued for a host of genes, including those related to cystic fibrosis, heart arrhythmias and hemochromatosis. The Patent and Trademark Office first issued a patent for a human gene in 1982 to the Regents of the University of California in connection to a hormone promoting breast development during pregnancy. Photo: hibiotech See Also: Flying in the Face of Infertility Humans Aren’t So Complicated Study: Human Genes Undercounted What Your Genes Do for You Lambs Get Human Genes Scientists Map the Brain, Gene by Gene Celera Unmasks Gene Variations The American Civil Liberties Union is suing the Patent and Trademark Office and a research company awarded exclusive rights to human genes known to detect early signs of breast or ovarian cancer. The group claims the patents violate speech by restricting research. The novel case, if successful, opens the door to challenges of a host of other patented genes: about one-fifth of the human genome is covered under patent applications and claims. The ACLU’s case is believed to be the first to challenge a patented gene under a civil rights allegation. According to the federal lawsuit, (.pdf) filed in the Southern District of New York, the First Amendment is at stake because the patents are so broad they bar scientists from examining and comparing the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes at the center of the dispute. In short, the patents issued more than a decade ago cover any new scientific methods of looking at these human genes that might be developed by others. “All identifying of differences, including those that are found in the future by anyone to correlate with an increased risk of cancer, are patented. Myriad did not create any of the differences found in the genes. Nature did,” said the suit, referencing patent holder Myriad Genetics of Salt Lake City. The ACLU, representing dozens of patients and researchers, said the case challenges the legality and constitutionality of granting patents covering the “most basic element of every person’s individuality.” The civil rights group maintains that, “What is patented is the abstract idea that nature has made the two genes different in a manner that increases that person’s risk” of cancer. The patents at issue gave Myriad Genetics a virtual monopoly on such predictive testing for breast and ovarian cancer, according to the suit. Women who fear they may be at an increased risk are barred from having anyone look at their BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes or interpret them except for the patent holder, which charges about $3,000 per test. Myriad, which had issued a cease-and-desist order to Yale University scientists researching the genes,  said it would prevail in the case. Richard Marsh, Myriad’s general counsel, said in a telephone interview that the patent office “has granted tens of thousands of genetic and genetic-related patents which cover a large number of pharmaceutical and diagnostic products. Myriad strongly believes that its patents are valid and enforceable, and will be upheld by the courts.” About 10 percent of women with breast cancer are likely to have a mutation inherited from their parents in the genes at issue, according to the suit. Patents for exclusive genetic testing have also been issued for a host of genes, including those related to cystic fibrosis, heart arrhythmias and hemochromatosis. The Patent and Trademark Office first issued a patent for a human gene in 1982 to the Regents of the University of California in connection to a hormone promoting breast development during pregnancy. Photo: hibiotech See Also: Flying in the Face of Infertility Humans Aren’t So Complicated Study: Human Genes Undercounted What Your Genes Do for You Lambs Get Human Genes Scientists Map the Brain, Gene by Gene Celera Unmasks Gene Variations tag:odeo.com,2009-05-13,24577988 Wed, 13 May 2009 12:27:14 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader censorship, intellectual property http://www.odeo.com/episodes/24541906-Apple-v-EFF-The-iPhone-Jailbreaking-Showdown PALO ALTO, California – To jailbreak or not to jailbreak the iPhone. That was the heated topic of discussion late Friday between Apple’s iPhone marketing czar Greg Joswiak, Fred von Lohmann, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s copyright genius, Copyright Office officials including registrar Marybeth Peters, the record labels, movie studios and software industry. Apple vigorously opposed authorizing jailbreaking, saying copyright protections is what gave birth to the iPhone, the 1 billion app sales, 50,000 app developers and 35,000 apps. The EFF vigorously urged the Copyright Office to authorize jailbreaking, which in this case is hacking the phone’s OS, and hence allowing consumers to run any app on the phone they want, including those not authorized by Apple. “It is my automobile at the end of the day,” von Lohmann said, a reference that iPhone users should be allowed to do what they want with their phones, just like car owners do. At stake for Apple is the very closed business mo... PALO ALTO, California – To jailbreak or not to jailbreak the iPhone. That was the heated topic of discussion late Friday between Apple’s iPhone marketing czar Greg Joswiak, Fred von Lohmann, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s copyright genius, Copyright Office officials including registrar Marybeth Peters, the record labels, movie studios and software industry. Apple vigorously opposed authorizing jailbreaking, saying copyright protections is what gave birth to the iPhone, the 1 billion app sales, 50,000 app developers and 35,000 apps. The EFF vigorously urged the Copyright Office to authorize jailbreaking, which in this case is hacking the phone’s OS, and hence allowing consumers to run any app on the phone they want, including those not authorized by Apple. “It is my automobile at the end of the day,” von Lohmann said, a reference that iPhone users should be allowed to do what they want with their phones, just like car owners do. At stake for Apple is the very closed business model Apple has enjoyed since 2007, when the iPhone debuted. More than 30 million have been sold so far. “This would severely limit our ability to continue what we are doing as well as innovate for the future,” Joswiak said. The panelists squared off here as part of the Copyright Office’s three-year review on whether to grant exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The act forbids circumventing encryption technology to copy or modify copyrighted works – in this instance encryption protecting the bootloader connected to the OS operating system itself. Neither Peters nor the three Copyright Office attorneys at the three-hour hearing here tipped their hats on whether they would recommend the librarian of Congress to grant the exemption, a decision expected later this year. Still, the changeover seemed unlikely as the Copyright Office has repeatedly denied consumer-friendly oriented fair use changes, such as requests to make up backup copies of DVDs or video games, as well as requests for exemptions to enable copying DVDs to laptops and portable devices. Despite the iPhone’s popularity, about three-dozen people attended the marathon, three-hour jailbreaking hearing here at Stanford University. The hearing came just months before Apple releases its OS 3.0, its latest operating iPhone system. There is an estimated 1 million-plus jailbroken iPhones, von Lohmann said. Apple said jailbreaking would amount to such a major modification – for example with apps turning the iPhone into a WiFi center — that the law does not permit it. Apple maintained allowing any app on the iPhone could be detrimental to the phone’s functionality that Apple will be overrun by service calls from angry customers. It also goes against the agreements it has with its 30 phone-connection carriers worldwide, Joswiak said. Ben Golant, the Copyright Office’s assistant general counsel, asked whether AT&T, the exclusive provider for the iPhone in the United States, “prohibits you from implementing certain applications?” “We don’t allow any bandwidth hogs,” Joswiak said. He added that the Cupertino company does not allow apps associated with porn or other distasteful content, including a so-called “Baby Shaker” app barred last week. The EFF, of San Francisco, requested the exemption. Apple (.pdf) fears opening its iPhone platform to non-approved apps could cost it money. It earns 30 percent for every app sold, but would get nothing from those not sold via iTunes. Most important, however, it fears that opening up the OS would lead to piracy of sanctioned iPhone apps as well as create a giant iPhone platform to play and copy infringing content like movies and games. The Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording industry Association of America, the Business Software Alliance and others said the DMCA does not allow  circumvention exemptions to create a “venue for infringing activity.” “The impact will be to open up fast fields for the manufacturers and purveyors of pirated games,” said Steve Metalitz, a representative for those groups. But von Lohmann countered and said the exemption, which would apply to all mobile phones including Google’s Android platform, is warranted because opening a venue for third-party apps is, by itself, a non-infringing activity the DMCA authorizes. “This is a close ecosystem of a business model,” von Lohmann said, adding: “I don’t think Congress meant that when they passed the DMCA.” The DMCA, which President Clinton signed ten years ago, dictates “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” But under the law, every three years the Librarian of Congress is charged with considering the public’s request for exemptions to that anti-circumvention language. An exception adopted during the last review in 2006 granted mobile-phone owners the right to circumvent the technological locks on their phones. Doing that allows users to switch phone carriers without buying a new phone. That is up for review again this year, and Peters and the other members of the Copyright Office entertained proposals to extend that for another three years as well. Over the decade, a handful of other exemptions have been granted. They include circumvention of anti-copying restrictions on DVDs for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in a classroom. Another was directed at the blind, allowing the circumvention of an e-book’s shuttered read-aloud function. Another allows the circumvention of access controls on CDs to research for security flaws. Here are all the nine exemptions under consideration this year. See Also: Hackers, Others Seek DMCA Exemptions Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking is Illegal Top Internet Threats: Censorship to Warrantless Surveillance … Online Video-Sharing Sites Score Copyright Victory The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 Feds Consider New DMCA Anti-Circumvention Exemptions DMCA Coupon Flap Ends Nobody ‘Won’ DMCA Abuser Apologizes, Will Take Copyright Law Course PALO ALTO, California – To jailbreak or not to jailbreak the iPhone. That was the heated topic of discussion late Friday between Apple’s iPhone marketing czar Greg Joswiak, Fred von Lohmann, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s copyright genius, Copyright Office officials including registrar Marybeth Peters, the record labels, movie studios and software industry. Apple vigorously opposed authorizing jailbreaking, saying copyright protections is what gave birth to the iPhone, the 1 billion app sales, 50,000 app developers and 35,000 apps. The EFF vigorously urged the Copyright Office to authorize jailbreaking, which in this case is hacking the phone’s OS, and hence allowing consumers to run any app on the phone they want, including those not authorized by Apple. “It is my automobile at the end of the day,” von Lohmann said, a reference that iPhone users should be allowed to do what they want with their phones, just like car owners do. At stake for Apple is the very closed business model Apple has enjoyed since 2007, when the iPhone debuted. More than 30 million have been sold so far. “This would severely limit our ability to continue what we are doing as well as innovate for the future,” Joswiak said. The panelists squared off here as part of the Copyright Office’s three-year review on whether to grant exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998. The act forbids circumventing encryption technology to copy or modify copyrighted works – in this instance encryption protecting the bootloader connected to the OS operating system itself. Neither Peters nor the three Copyright Office attorneys at the three-hour hearing here tipped their hats on whether they would recommend the librarian of Congress to grant the exemption, a decision expected later this year. Still, the changeover seemed unlikely as the Copyright Office has repeatedly denied consumer-friendly oriented fair use changes, such as requests to make up backup copies of DVDs or video games, as well as requests for exemptions to enable copying DVDs to laptops and portable devices. Despite the iPhone’s popularity, about three-dozen people attended the marathon, three-hour jailbreaking hearing here at Stanford University. The hearing came just months before Apple releases its OS 3.0, its latest operating iPhone system. There is an estimated 1 million-plus jailbroken iPhones, von Lohmann said. Apple said jailbreaking would amount to such a major modification – for example with apps turning the iPhone into a WiFi center — that the law does not permit it. Apple maintained allowing any app on the iPhone could be detrimental to the phone’s functionality that Apple will be overrun by service calls from angry customers. It also goes against the agreements it has with its 30 phone-connection carriers worldwide, Joswiak said. Ben Golant, the Copyright Office’s assistant general counsel, asked whether AT&T, the exclusive provider for the iPhone in the United States, “prohibits you from implementing certain applications?” “We don’t allow any bandwidth hogs,” Joswiak said. He added that the Cupertino company does not allow apps associated with porn or other distasteful content, including a so-called “Baby Shaker” app barred last week. The EFF, of San Francisco, requested the exemption. Apple (.pdf) fears opening its iPhone platform to non-approved apps could cost it money. It earns 30 percent for every app sold, but would get nothing from those not sold via iTunes. Most important, however, it fears that opening up the OS would lead to piracy of sanctioned iPhone apps as well as create a giant iPhone platform to play and copy infringing content like movies and games. The Motion Picture Association of America, the Recording industry Association of America, the Business Software Alliance and others said the DMCA does not allow  circumvention exemptions to create a “venue for infringing activity.” “The impact will be to open up fast fields for the manufacturers and purveyors of pirated games,” said Steve Metalitz, a representative for those groups. But von Lohmann countered and said the exemption, which would apply to all mobile phones including Google’s Android platform, is warranted because opening a venue for third-party apps is, by itself, a non-infringing activity the DMCA authorizes. “This is a close ecosystem of a business model,” von Lohmann said, adding: “I don’t think Congress meant that when they passed the DMCA.” The DMCA, which President Clinton signed ten years ago, dictates “no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.” But under the law, every three years the Librarian of Congress is charged with considering the public’s request for exemptions to that anti-circumvention language. An exception adopted during the last review in 2006 granted mobile-phone owners the right to circumvent the technological locks on their phones. Doing that allows users to switch phone carriers without buying a new phone. That is up for review again this year, and Peters and the other members of the Copyright Office entertained proposals to extend that for another three years as well. Over the decade, a handful of other exemptions have been granted. They include circumvention of anti-copying restrictions on DVDs for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in a classroom. Another was directed at the blind, allowing the circumvention of an e-book’s shuttered read-aloud function. Another allows the circumvention of access controls on CDs to research for security flaws. Here are all the nine exemptions under consideration this year. See Also: Hackers, Others Seek DMCA Exemptions Apple Says iPhone Jailbreaking is Illegal Top Internet Threats: Censorship to Warrantless Surveillance … Online Video-Sharing Sites Score Copyright Victory The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 Feds Consider New DMCA Anti-Circumvention Exemptions DMCA Coupon Flap Ends Nobody ‘Won’ DMCA Abuser Apologizes, Will Take Copyright Law Course tag:odeo.com,2009-05-01,24541906 Fri, 01 May 2009 23:22:42 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Digital Millennium Copyright Act http://www.odeo.com/episodes/24246555-TWiL-21-It-s-Our-Data-And-We-ll-Cry-If-We-Want-To Hosts: Denise Howell, Evan Brown, Colette Vogele, Jonathan Bailey, and Rick Klau Larry Lessig, downloading YouTube, Facebook and Twitter EULAs and licensing, and more. TWiL Wiki Shownotes TWiL on Friendfeed Talking points: http://delicious.com/thisweekinlaw/21. Audible picks: Anathem, Unabridged, By Neal Stephenson, Narrated by Oliver Wyman, Tavia Gilbert, William Dufris, Neal Stephenson. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:44:34 Hosts: Denise Howell, Evan Brown, Colette Vogele, Jonathan Bailey, and Rick Klau Larry Lessig, downloading YouTube, Facebook and Twitter EULAs and licensing, and more. TWiL Wiki Shownotes TWiL on Friendfeed Talking points: http://delicious.com/thisweekinlaw/21. Audible picks: Anathem, Unabridged, By Neal Stephenson, Narrated by Oliver Wyman, Tavia Gilbert, William Dufris, Neal Stephenson. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:44:34 Hosts: Denise Howell, Evan Brown, Colette Vogele, Jonathan Bailey, and Rick Klau Larry Lessig, downloading YouTube, Facebook and Twitter EULAs and licensing, and more. TWiL Wiki Shownotes TWiL on Friendfeed Talking points: http://delicious.com/thisweekinlaw/21. Audible picks: Anathem, Unabridged, By Neal Stephenson, Narrated by Oliver Wyman, Tavia Gilbert, William Dufris, Neal Stephenson. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:44:34 tag:odeo.com,2009-02-26,24246555 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:12:12 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Technology, News, law http://www.odeo.com/episodes/24251612-TWiL-21-It-s-Our-Data-And-We-ll-Cry-If-We-Want-To Hosts: Denise Howell, Evan Brown, Colette Vogele, Jonathan Bailey, and Rick Klau Larry Lessig, downloading YouTube, Facebook and Twitter EULAs and licensing, and more. TWiL Wiki Shownotes TWiL on Friendfeed Talking points: http://delicious.com/thisweekinlaw/21. Audible picks: Anathem, Unabridged, By Neal Stephenson, Narrated by Oliver Wyman, Tavia Gilbert, William Dufris, Neal Stephenson. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:44:34 Hosts: Denise Howell, Evan Brown, Colette Vogele, Jonathan Bailey, and Rick Klau Larry Lessig, downloading YouTube, Facebook and Twitter EULAs and licensing, and more. TWiL Wiki Shownotes TWiL on Friendfeed Talking points: http://delicious.com/thisweekinlaw/21. Audible picks: Anathem, Unabridged, By Neal Stephenson, Narrated by Oliver Wyman, Tavia Gilbert, William Dufris, Neal Stephenson. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:44:34 Hosts: Denise Howell, Evan Brown, Colette Vogele, Jonathan Bailey, and Rick Klau Larry Lessig, downloading YouTube, Facebook and Twitter EULAs and licensing, and more. TWiL Wiki Shownotes TWiL on Friendfeed Talking points: http://delicious.com/thisweekinlaw/21. Audible picks: Anathem, Unabridged, By Neal Stephenson, Narrated by Oliver Wyman, Tavia Gilbert, William Dufris, Neal Stephenson. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:44:34 tag:odeo.com,2009-02-26,24251612 Thu, 26 Feb 2009 13:12:12 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Technology, News, law http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23732076-Student-Who-Created-Facebook-Group-Critical-of-Teacher-Sues-High-School-Over-Suspension A former Florida high school student who was disciplined for "cyberbullying" a teacher on Facebook is suing the school principal on allegations of violating her free speech rights. The case highlights the legal challenges facing courts and school administrators as they grapple with campus civil order and free expression in an online world. "We're in the very first generation of this and there's nothing ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear," said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Virginia-based Student Press Law Center. The lawsuit, filed Monday in a Florida federal court, concerns Katherine Evans, now 19, who was suspended as a senior last year after creating a Facebook group devoted to her English teacher. The group was called "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met!," and featured a photograph of the teacher, and an invitation for other students to "express your feelings of hatred." After people's comments derided Evans for the online stunt, and expressed su... A former Florida high school student who was disciplined for "cyberbullying" a teacher on Facebook is suing the school principal on allegations of violating her free speech rights. The case highlights the legal challenges facing courts and school administrators as they grapple with campus civil order and free expression in an online world. "We're in the very first generation of this and there's nothing ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear," said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Virginia-based Student Press Law Center. The lawsuit, filed Monday in a Florida federal court, concerns Katherine Evans, now 19, who was suspended as a senior last year after creating a Facebook group devoted to her English teacher. The group was called "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met!," and featured a photograph of the teacher, and an invitation for other students to "express your feelings of hatred." After people's comments derided Evans for the online stunt, and expressed support for the teacher, she deleted the group. But Pembroke Pines Charter High School, which did not respond for comment, suspended Evans for three days for "disruptive behavior" and for "Bullying / Cyber Bullying Harassment towards a staff member," according to the lawsuit, which is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Evans was removed from her from advanced placement classes "and forced her into the lesser-weighted honors classes." The lawsuit alleges the black mark on Evans' permanent record is "unjustifiably straining her academic reputation and good standing." The lawsuit(.pdf) is one of about a dozen across the United States that are part of the fallout as schools confront cyberbullying and the explosion of social networking sites. A Texas high school volleyball coach in September went so far as to declare a ban on student Facebook and MySpace profiles, a decision the Northside Independent School District reversed(.pdf). Last month, Tennessee State University blocked the online gossip site JuicyCampus at the school firewall. In June, Missouri enacted a law against "cyberbullying" in the wake of the Megan Meier suicide tragedy, which was triggered by a hoax MySpace account. Before the internet, student speech cases usually concerned student newspapers and dress codes. There's no bright-line rule on what constitutes free, student speech in the online world. And as schools start to regulate off-campus student speech on the internet, lawsuits are following. The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the parameters of online student speech, but might soon. So far, lower courts are following a 1969 high court ruling saying student speech is protected unless it is "substantially disruptive," though the road map provided by that decision is leading different judges to varying destinations. In that landmark case, the Supreme Court said students had a First Amendment right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Generally, the courts have allowed the suppression of student speech, online or off, when it threatens bodily harm and advocates illegal activity, "none of which we have in Ms. Evans' case," said one of the teen's attorneys, Matthew D. Bavaro, of Plantation, Florida. "She has the absolute First Amendment right to do this," Bavaro said. "The question is how far does the school's authority go to punish off-campus speech they don't like? If Katie had praised the teacher, would she have been punished? The school is judging what is appropriate speech." But with the explosion of the internet and social networking sites, "The courts are figuring out where the boundaries end and start when it comes to off-campus speech," LoMonte said. On Wednesday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, one court level below the Supreme Court, will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit similar to the Florida case filed Monday. The appeal concerns Justin Layshock, who, as a senior and honors student at a Pennsylvania high school, was suspended for 10 days after creating a mock MySpace profile of his principal. The profile said the principal took drugs and kept beer at his desk. A federal judge overturned the suspension, ruling last year that the fake profile was not created at school and did not create a "substantial disruption." "Public schools are vital institutions, but their reach is not unlimited," U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry of Pennsylvania ruled last year. Hickory High School appealed. According to Monday's lawsuit, Evans used no profanities and stated no threats against the teacher. The suspension notice from the public school alleged only that Evans "had posted an inappropriate site regarding her teacher on Facebook." Evans is demanding that the suspension be removed from her record. A former Florida high school student who was disciplined for "cyberbullying" a teacher on Facebook is suing the school principal on allegations of violating her free speech rights. The case highlights the legal challenges facing courts and school administrators as they grapple with campus civil order and free expression in an online world. "We're in the very first generation of this and there's nothing ripe for the U.S. Supreme Court to hear," said Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Virginia-based Student Press Law Center. The lawsuit, filed Monday in a Florida federal court, concerns Katherine Evans, now 19, who was suspended as a senior last year after creating a Facebook group devoted to her English teacher. The group was called "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met!," and featured a photograph of the teacher, and an invitation for other students to "express your feelings of hatred." After people's comments derided Evans for the online stunt, and expressed support for the teacher, she deleted the group. But Pembroke Pines Charter High School, which did not respond for comment, suspended Evans for three days for "disruptive behavior" and for "Bullying / Cyber Bullying Harassment towards a staff member," according to the lawsuit, which is backed by the American Civil Liberties Union. Evans was removed from her from advanced placement classes "and forced her into the lesser-weighted honors classes." The lawsuit alleges the black mark on Evans' permanent record is "unjustifiably straining her academic reputation and good standing." The lawsuit(.pdf) is one of about a dozen across the United States that are part of the fallout as schools confront cyberbullying and the explosion of social networking sites. A Texas high school volleyball coach in September went so far as to declare a ban on student Facebook and MySpace profiles, a decision the Northside Independent School District reversed(.pdf). Last month, Tennessee State University blocked the online gossip site JuicyCampus at the school firewall. In June, Missouri enacted a law against "cyberbullying" in the wake of the Megan Meier suicide tragedy, which was triggered by a hoax MySpace account. Before the internet, student speech cases usually concerned student newspapers and dress codes. There's no bright-line rule on what constitutes free, student speech in the online world. And as schools start to regulate off-campus student speech on the internet, lawsuits are following. The U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed the parameters of online student speech, but might soon. So far, lower courts are following a 1969 high court ruling saying student speech is protected unless it is "substantially disruptive," though the road map provided by that decision is leading different judges to varying destinations. In that landmark case, the Supreme Court said students had a First Amendment right to wear black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. Generally, the courts have allowed the suppression of student speech, online or off, when it threatens bodily harm and advocates illegal activity, "none of which we have in Ms. Evans' case," said one of the teen's attorneys, Matthew D. Bavaro, of Plantation, Florida. "She has the absolute First Amendment right to do this," Bavaro said. "The question is how far does the school's authority go to punish off-campus speech they don't like? If Katie had praised the teacher, would she have been punished? The school is judging what is appropriate speech." But with the explosion of the internet and social networking sites, "The courts are figuring out where the boundaries end and start when it comes to off-campus speech," LoMonte said. On Wednesday, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, one court level below the Supreme Court, will hear oral arguments in a lawsuit similar to the Florida case filed Monday. The appeal concerns Justin Layshock, who, as a senior and honors student at a Pennsylvania high school, was suspended for 10 days after creating a mock MySpace profile of his principal. The profile said the principal took drugs and kept beer at his desk. A federal judge overturned the suspension, ruling last year that the fake profile was not created at school and did not create a "substantial disruption." "Public schools are vital institutions, but their reach is not unlimited," U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry of Pennsylvania ruled last year. Hickory High School appealed. According to Monday's lawsuit, Evans used no profanities and stated no threats against the teacher. The suspension notice from the public school alleged only that Evans "had posted an inappropriate site regarding her teacher on Facebook." Evans is demanding that the suspension be removed from her record. tag:odeo.com,2008-12-09,23732076 Tue, 09 Dec 2008 20:33:18 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader The Courts http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23702908-Hackers-Others-Seek-DMCA-Exemptions The U.S. Copyright Office has received 19 comments constituting nine requests for exemptions to anti-circumvention provisionsto the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Every three years, the office and the Librarian of Congress request proposed changes as required under the decade-old law. The DMCA, which President Clinton signed 10 years ago, dictates "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." More than a dozen exemptions to that language have been granted the past decade. Public hearings on the latest requests, which were submitted by Tuesday's deadline, will be held in early 2009. Here are summaries and links to the exemption petitions: *The American Foundation for the Blind is petitioning(.pdf) to renew an exemption granted in 2002 and 2006 allowing the hacking of an e-book's shuttered read-aloud function. * Petition(.pdf) to exempt DRM-protected streaming video "where the provider has only made avail... The U.S. Copyright Office has received 19 comments constituting nine requests for exemptions to anti-circumvention provisionsto the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Every three years, the office and the Librarian of Congress request proposed changes as required under the decade-old law. The DMCA, which President Clinton signed 10 years ago, dictates "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." More than a dozen exemptions to that language have been granted the past decade. Public hearings on the latest requests, which were submitted by Tuesday's deadline, will be held in early 2009. Here are summaries and links to the exemption petitions: *The American Foundation for the Blind is petitioning(.pdf) to renew an exemption granted in 2002 and 2006 allowing the hacking of an e-book's shuttered read-aloud function. * Petition(.pdf) to exempt DRM-protected streaming video "where the provider has only made available players for a limited number of platforms, effectively creating an access control that requires a specific operating system version and/or set of hardware to view purchased material." *Film studies professors are currently allowed to copy clips from copyrighted and encrypted DVDs for educational purposes. Petitions from a variety of university professors and others ask(.pdf) that the right be extended to documentary filmmakers and to U.S. teachers of any subject at all levels. *University of Michigan computer scientist J. Alex Halderman petitions(.pdf) to hack copy-control measures on sound recordings, videos and audiovisual works "for the purpose of good-faith testing, investigating or correcting … security flaws or vulnerabilities." * Spectrum Software(.pdf) of Florida is asking to continue exemptions granted in 2000, 2003 and 2006 authorizing the circumvention of so-called "dongles" — access control devices in older software that attached to either the printer port or the USB port of a computer and prevents a licensed end user from accessing computer programs that have been legally purchased. * MetroPCS(.pdf) and others are petitioning to extend for another three years the ability to unlock one's cellphone to switch that phone to another, compatible carrier. *Harvard University and CNET columnist Christopher Soghoian is requesting(.pdf) users of DRM-protected music, videos, software and games be allowed to circumvent that copy protection feature to protect their properties if a central authenticating server connected to that merchandise, including Apple's iTunes, is shuttered for whatever reason. *The Electronic Frontier Foundation is petitioning(.pdf) for the privilege of hacking smartphones, which could allow iPhone owners, for example, to run Firefox on their devices. *The EFF is also seeking an exemption(.pdf) to circumventing DVD encryption to obtain clips "for inclusion in noncommercial videos that do not infringe copyright." The risk of liability "chills the ability of remix video creators to resist unfounded DMCA 'takedown notices' that impair their ability to share remix videos on the internet," the EFF wrote. Here is a linkto all the comments. The U.S. Copyright Office has received 19 comments constituting nine requests for exemptions to anti-circumvention provisionsto the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Every three years, the office and the Librarian of Congress request proposed changes as required under the decade-old law. The DMCA, which President Clinton signed 10 years ago, dictates "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." More than a dozen exemptions to that language have been granted the past decade. Public hearings on the latest requests, which were submitted by Tuesday's deadline, will be held in early 2009. Here are summaries and links to the exemption petitions: *The American Foundation for the Blind is petitioning(.pdf) to renew an exemption granted in 2002 and 2006 allowing the hacking of an e-book's shuttered read-aloud function. * Petition(.pdf) to exempt DRM-protected streaming video "where the provider has only made available players for a limited number of platforms, effectively creating an access control that requires a specific operating system version and/or set of hardware to view purchased material." *Film studies professors are currently allowed to copy clips from copyrighted and encrypted DVDs for educational purposes. Petitions from a variety of university professors and others ask(.pdf) that the right be extended to documentary filmmakers and to U.S. teachers of any subject at all levels. *University of Michigan computer scientist J. Alex Halderman petitions(.pdf) to hack copy-control measures on sound recordings, videos and audiovisual works "for the purpose of good-faith testing, investigating or correcting … security flaws or vulnerabilities." * Spectrum Software(.pdf) of Florida is asking to continue exemptions granted in 2000, 2003 and 2006 authorizing the circumvention of so-called "dongles" — access control devices in older software that attached to either the printer port or the USB port of a computer and prevents a licensed end user from accessing computer programs that have been legally purchased. * MetroPCS(.pdf) and others are petitioning to extend for another three years the ability to unlock one's cellphone to switch that phone to another, compatible carrier. *Harvard University and CNET columnist Christopher Soghoian is requesting(.pdf) users of DRM-protected music, videos, software and games be allowed to circumvent that copy protection feature to protect their properties if a central authenticating server connected to that merchandise, including Apple's iTunes, is shuttered for whatever reason. *The Electronic Frontier Foundation is petitioning(.pdf) for the privilege of hacking smartphones, which could allow iPhone owners, for example, to run Firefox on their devices. *The EFF is also seeking an exemption(.pdf) to circumventing DVD encryption to obtain clips "for inclusion in noncommercial videos that do not infringe copyright." The risk of liability "chills the ability of remix video creators to resist unfounded DMCA 'takedown notices' that impair their ability to share remix videos on the internet," the EFF wrote. Here is a linkto all the comments. tag:odeo.com,2008-12-03,23702908 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:18:24 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Digital Millennium Copyright Act http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23725958-Hackers-Others-Seek-DMCA-Exemptions The U.S. Copyright Office has received 19 comments constituting nine requests for exemptions to anti-circumvention provisionsto the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Every three years, the office and the Librarian of Congress request proposed changes as required under the decade-old law. The DMCA, which President Clinton signed 10 years ago, dictates "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." More than a dozen exemptions to that language have been granted the past decade. Public hearings on the latest requests, which were submitted by Tuesday's deadline, will be held in early 2009. Here are summaries and links to the exemption petitions: *The American Foundation for the Blind is petitioning(.pdf) to renew an exemption granted in 2002 and 2006 allowing the hacking of an e-book's shuttered read-aloud function. * Petition(.pdf) to exempt DRM-protected streaming video "where the provider has only made avail... The U.S. Copyright Office has received 19 comments constituting nine requests for exemptions to anti-circumvention provisionsto the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Every three years, the office and the Librarian of Congress request proposed changes as required under the decade-old law. The DMCA, which President Clinton signed 10 years ago, dictates "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." More than a dozen exemptions to that language have been granted the past decade. Public hearings on the latest requests, which were submitted by Tuesday's deadline, will be held in early 2009. Here are summaries and links to the exemption petitions: *The American Foundation for the Blind is petitioning(.pdf) to renew an exemption granted in 2002 and 2006 allowing the hacking of an e-book's shuttered read-aloud function. * Petition(.pdf) to exempt DRM-protected streaming video "where the provider has only made available players for a limited number of platforms, effectively creating an access control that requires a specific operating system version and/or set of hardware to view purchased material." *Film studies professors are currently allowed to copy clips from copyrighted and encrypted DVDs for educational purposes. Petitions from a variety of university professors and others ask(.pdf) that the right be extended to documentary filmmakers and to U.S. teachers of any subject at all levels. *University of Michigan computer scientist J. Alex Halderman petitions(.pdf) to hack copy-control measures on sound recordings, videos and audiovisual works "for the purpose of good-faith testing, investigating or correcting … security flaws or vulnerabilities." * Spectrum Software(.pdf) of Florida is asking to continue exemptions granted in 2000, 2003 and 2006 authorizing the circumvention of so-called "dongles" — access control devices in older software that attached to either the printer port or the USB port of a computer and prevents a licensed end user from accessing computer programs that have been legally purchased. * MetroPCS(.pdf) and others are petitioning to extend for another three years the ability to unlock one's cellphone to switch that phone to another, compatible carrier. *Harvard University and CNET columnist Christopher Soghoian is requesting(.pdf) users of DRM-protected music, videos, software and games be allowed to circumvent that copy protection feature to protect their properties if a central authenticating server connected to that merchandise, including Apple's iTunes, is shuttered for whatever reason. *The Electronic Frontier Foundation is petitioning(.pdf) for the privilege of hacking smartphones, which could allow iPhone owners, for example, to run Firefox on their devices. *The EFF is also seeking an exemption(.pdf) to circumventing DVD encryption to obtain clips "for inclusion in noncommercial videos that do not infringe copyright." The risk of liability "chills the ability of remix video creators to resist unfounded DMCA 'takedown notices' that impair their ability to share remix videos on the internet," the EFF wrote. Here is a linkto all the comments. The U.S. Copyright Office has received 19 comments constituting nine requests for exemptions to anti-circumvention provisionsto the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Every three years, the office and the Librarian of Congress request proposed changes as required under the decade-old law. The DMCA, which President Clinton signed 10 years ago, dictates "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." More than a dozen exemptions to that language have been granted the past decade. Public hearings on the latest requests, which were submitted by Tuesday's deadline, will be held in early 2009. Here are summaries and links to the exemption petitions: *The American Foundation for the Blind is petitioning(.pdf) to renew an exemption granted in 2002 and 2006 allowing the hacking of an e-book's shuttered read-aloud function. * Petition(.pdf) to exempt DRM-protected streaming video "where the provider has only made available players for a limited number of platforms, effectively creating an access control that requires a specific operating system version and/or set of hardware to view purchased material." *Film studies professors are currently allowed to copy clips from copyrighted and encrypted DVDs for educational purposes. Petitions from a variety of university professors and others ask(.pdf) that the right be extended to documentary filmmakers and to U.S. teachers of any subject at all levels. *University of Michigan computer scientist J. Alex Halderman petitions(.pdf) to hack copy-control measures on sound recordings, videos and audiovisual works "for the purpose of good-faith testing, investigating or correcting … security flaws or vulnerabilities." * Spectrum Software(.pdf) of Florida is asking to continue exemptions granted in 2000, 2003 and 2006 authorizing the circumvention of so-called "dongles" — access control devices in older software that attached to either the printer port or the USB port of a computer and prevents a licensed end user from accessing computer programs that have been legally purchased. * MetroPCS(.pdf) and others are petitioning to extend for another three years the ability to unlock one's cellphone to switch that phone to another, compatible carrier. *Harvard University and CNET columnist Christopher Soghoian is requesting(.pdf) users of DRM-protected music, videos, software and games be allowed to circumvent that copy protection feature to protect their properties if a central authenticating server connected to that merchandise, including Apple's iTunes, is shuttered for whatever reason. *The Electronic Frontier Foundation is petitioning(.pdf) for the privilege of hacking smartphones, which could allow iPhone owners, for example, to run Firefox on their devices. *The EFF is also seeking an exemption(.pdf) to circumventing DVD encryption to obtain clips "for inclusion in noncommercial videos that do not infringe copyright." The risk of liability "chills the ability of remix video creators to resist unfounded DMCA 'takedown notices' that impair their ability to share remix videos on the internet," the EFF wrote. Here is a linkto all the comments. tag:odeo.com,2008-12-03,23725958 Wed, 03 Dec 2008 13:18:24 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Digital Millennium Copyright Act http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23725960-Barack-Obama-Champion-for-Copyright-Reform I’m no fan of our President-elect, but I have to tip my hat to him on this interesting bit of P.R.: The new administration’s transition site, Change.gov, is being published under a Creative Commons license. (source) This means that the content is not subject to the draconian, life-plus-70 protection that is the default under the current federal copyright act. Does this mean that our next president may be in favor of copyright reform? One can only dream. Posted in copyright, fair use, ip, politics       I’m no fan of our President-elect, but I have to tip my hat to him on this interesting bit of P.R.: The new administration’s transition site, Change.gov, is being published under a Creative Commons license. (source) This means that the content is not subject to the draconian, life-plus-70 protection that is the default under the current federal copyright act. Does this mean that our next president may be in favor of copyright reform? One can only dream. Posted in copyright, fair use, ip, politics       I’m no fan of our President-elect, but I have to tip my hat to him on this interesting bit of P.R.: The new administration’s transition site, Change.gov, is being published under a Creative Commons license. (source) This means that the content is not subject to the draconian, life-plus-70 protection that is the default under the current federal copyright act. Does this mean that our next president may be in favor of copyright reform? One can only dream. Posted in copyright, fair use, ip, politics       tag:odeo.com,2008-12-02,23725960 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:10:15 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Politics, copyright, ip, fair use http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23697911-Barack-Obama-Champion-for-Copyright-Reform I’m no fan of our President-elect, but I have to tip my hat to him on this interesting bit of P.R.: The new administration’s transition site, Change.gov, is being published under a Creative Commons license. (source) This means that the content is not subject to the draconian, life-plus-70 protection that is the default under the current federal copyright act. Does this mean that our next president may be in favor of copyright reform? One can only dream. Posted in copyright, fair use, ip, politics       I’m no fan of our President-elect, but I have to tip my hat to him on this interesting bit of P.R.: The new administration’s transition site, Change.gov, is being published under a Creative Commons license. (source) This means that the content is not subject to the draconian, life-plus-70 protection that is the default under the current federal copyright act. Does this mean that our next president may be in favor of copyright reform? One can only dream. Posted in copyright, fair use, ip, politics       I’m no fan of our President-elect, but I have to tip my hat to him on this interesting bit of P.R.: The new administration’s transition site, Change.gov, is being published under a Creative Commons license. (source) This means that the content is not subject to the draconian, life-plus-70 protection that is the default under the current federal copyright act. Does this mean that our next president may be in favor of copyright reform? One can only dream. Posted in copyright, fair use, ip, politics       tag:odeo.com,2008-12-02,23697911 Tue, 02 Dec 2008 18:10:15 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Politics, copyright, ip, fair use http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23725959-Apple-Bullying-Wiki-Site-Over-Piss-Poor-DMCA-Claims Manufactured in China, and learning valuable lessons in freedom by manufacturing osmosis As an avid Apple user, sometimes I just want to punch somebody over at Cupertino in the balls. First, I love their nomenclature for their brutal DRM scheme — Fairplay. It seems to just shout “hey stupid consumer! Restricting how you can use media you PAY for is just fair play!” Fuck you, Apple. The latest Apple initiative to irk my ire is a cease-and-desist notice sent to wiki hosting site Bluwiki, ordering them to take down wikis related to Itunes hash files. Apple’s problem is that these wikis contained information about hash files encapsulated in itunes.db, an iTunes file that has information about the user’s music library. To make a long story short, Apple likes Ipods to be managed only with iTunes software, so that the sheep fill their Ipods with music purchased through Itunes and not with music leeched from the intertubes. Thus, they restrict access to your music library database (not the ... Manufactured in China, and learning valuable lessons in freedom by manufacturing osmosis As an avid Apple user, sometimes I just want to punch somebody over at Cupertino in the balls. First, I love their nomenclature for their brutal DRM scheme — Fairplay. It seems to just shout “hey stupid consumer! Restricting how you can use media you PAY for is just fair play!” Fuck you, Apple. The latest Apple initiative to irk my ire is a cease-and-desist notice sent to wiki hosting site Bluwiki, ordering them to take down wikis related to Itunes hash files. Apple’s problem is that these wikis contained information about hash files encapsulated in itunes.db, an iTunes file that has information about the user’s music library. To make a long story short, Apple likes Ipods to be managed only with iTunes software, so that the sheep fill their Ipods with music purchased through Itunes and not with music leeched from the intertubes. Thus, they restrict access to your music library database (not the files, but only the index) through a hashfile that periodically gets changed in iTunes revisions. After a couple of days, internet users figure out the hashfile and update the third-party applications that allow users to access their ipod’s music library. Apple got their panties in a twist and fired off a cease-and-desist letter. Bluwiki, like little bitches, immediately complied with the cease-and-desist fearing litigation with Apple. The EFF (aka my heroes) caught wind and, as the kids would say, are hella pissed. Where’s the “technology, product, service, device or device”? The DMCA provides that: No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that … is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner…. The information posted on the wiki appeared to be text, along with some illustrative code. Nothing that I saw on the pages I was able to review would appear to constitute a “technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.” In fact, the authors had apparently not yet succeeded in their reverse engineering efforts and were simply discussing Apple’s code obfuscation techniques. If Apple is suggesting that the DMCA reaches people merely talking about technical protection measures, then they’ve got a serious First Amendment problem. Translation: Apple — go get your fucking shinebox. Posted in ass hat, copyright, First Amendment, internet law   Tagged: Apple, Cease-and-Desist, DMCA, First Amendment    Manufactured in China, and learning valuable lessons in freedom by manufacturing osmosis As an avid Apple user, sometimes I just want to punch somebody over at Cupertino in the balls. First, I love their nomenclature for their brutal DRM scheme — Fairplay. It seems to just shout “hey stupid consumer! Restricting how you can use media you PAY for is just fair play!” Fuck you, Apple. The latest Apple initiative to irk my ire is a cease-and-desist notice sent to wiki hosting site Bluwiki, ordering them to take down wikis related to Itunes hash files. Apple’s problem is that these wikis contained information about hash files encapsulated in itunes.db, an iTunes file that has information about the user’s music library. To make a long story short, Apple likes Ipods to be managed only with iTunes software, so that the sheep fill their Ipods with music purchased through Itunes and not with music leeched from the intertubes. Thus, they restrict access to your music library database (not the files, but only the index) through a hashfile that periodically gets changed in iTunes revisions. After a couple of days, internet users figure out the hashfile and update the third-party applications that allow users to access their ipod’s music library. Apple got their panties in a twist and fired off a cease-and-desist letter. Bluwiki, like little bitches, immediately complied with the cease-and-desist fearing litigation with Apple. The EFF (aka my heroes) caught wind and, as the kids would say, are hella pissed. Where’s the “technology, product, service, device or device”? The DMCA provides that: No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that … is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner…. The information posted on the wiki appeared to be text, along with some illustrative code. Nothing that I saw on the pages I was able to review would appear to constitute a “technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.” In fact, the authors had apparently not yet succeeded in their reverse engineering efforts and were simply discussing Apple’s code obfuscation techniques. If Apple is suggesting that the DMCA reaches people merely talking about technical protection measures, then they’ve got a serious First Amendment problem. Translation: Apple — go get your fucking shinebox. Posted in ass hat, copyright, First Amendment, internet law   Tagged: Apple, Cease-and-Desist, DMCA, First Amendment    tag:odeo.com,2008-11-29,23725959 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:27:11 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader apple, copyright, dmca, first amendment, Internet Law, ass hat, Cease-and-Desist http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23697910-Apple-Bullying-Wiki-Site-Over-Piss-Poor-DMCA-Claims Manufactured in China, and learning valuable lessons in freedom by manufacturing osmosis As an avid Apple user, sometimes I just want to punch somebody over at Cupertino in the balls. First, I love their nomenclature for their brutal DRM scheme — Fairplay. It seems to just shout “hey stupid consumer! Restricting how you can use media you PAY for is just fair play!” Fuck you, Apple. The latest Apple initiative to irk my ire is a cease-and-desist notice sent to wiki hosting site Bluwiki, ordering them to take down wikis related to Itunes hash files. Apple’s problem is that these wikis contained information about hash files encapsulated in itunes.db, an iTunes file that has information about the user’s music library. To make a long story short, Apple likes Ipods to be managed only with iTunes software, so that the sheep fill their Ipods with music purchased through Itunes and not with music leeched from the intertubes. Thus, they restrict access to your music library database (not the ... Manufactured in China, and learning valuable lessons in freedom by manufacturing osmosis As an avid Apple user, sometimes I just want to punch somebody over at Cupertino in the balls. First, I love their nomenclature for their brutal DRM scheme — Fairplay. It seems to just shout “hey stupid consumer! Restricting how you can use media you PAY for is just fair play!” Fuck you, Apple. The latest Apple initiative to irk my ire is a cease-and-desist notice sent to wiki hosting site Bluwiki, ordering them to take down wikis related to Itunes hash files. Apple’s problem is that these wikis contained information about hash files encapsulated in itunes.db, an iTunes file that has information about the user’s music library. To make a long story short, Apple likes Ipods to be managed only with iTunes software, so that the sheep fill their Ipods with music purchased through Itunes and not with music leeched from the intertubes. Thus, they restrict access to your music library database (not the files, but only the index) through a hashfile that periodically gets changed in iTunes revisions. After a couple of days, internet users figure out the hashfile and update the third-party applications that allow users to access their ipod’s music library. Apple got their panties in a twist and fired off a cease-and-desist letter. Bluwiki, like little bitches, immediately complied with the cease-and-desist fearing litigation with Apple. The EFF (aka my heroes) caught wind and, as the kids would say, are hella pissed. Where’s the “technology, product, service, device or device”? The DMCA provides that: No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that … is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner…. The information posted on the wiki appeared to be text, along with some illustrative code. Nothing that I saw on the pages I was able to review would appear to constitute a “technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.” In fact, the authors had apparently not yet succeeded in their reverse engineering efforts and were simply discussing Apple’s code obfuscation techniques. If Apple is suggesting that the DMCA reaches people merely talking about technical protection measures, then they’ve got a serious First Amendment problem. Translation: Apple — go get your fucking shinebox. Posted in ass hat, copyright, First Amendment, internet law   Tagged: Apple, Cease-and-Desist, DMCA, First Amendment    Manufactured in China, and learning valuable lessons in freedom by manufacturing osmosis As an avid Apple user, sometimes I just want to punch somebody over at Cupertino in the balls. First, I love their nomenclature for their brutal DRM scheme — Fairplay. It seems to just shout “hey stupid consumer! Restricting how you can use media you PAY for is just fair play!” Fuck you, Apple. The latest Apple initiative to irk my ire is a cease-and-desist notice sent to wiki hosting site Bluwiki, ordering them to take down wikis related to Itunes hash files. Apple’s problem is that these wikis contained information about hash files encapsulated in itunes.db, an iTunes file that has information about the user’s music library. To make a long story short, Apple likes Ipods to be managed only with iTunes software, so that the sheep fill their Ipods with music purchased through Itunes and not with music leeched from the intertubes. Thus, they restrict access to your music library database (not the files, but only the index) through a hashfile that periodically gets changed in iTunes revisions. After a couple of days, internet users figure out the hashfile and update the third-party applications that allow users to access their ipod’s music library. Apple got their panties in a twist and fired off a cease-and-desist letter. Bluwiki, like little bitches, immediately complied with the cease-and-desist fearing litigation with Apple. The EFF (aka my heroes) caught wind and, as the kids would say, are hella pissed. Where’s the “technology, product, service, device or device”? The DMCA provides that: No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that … is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner…. The information posted on the wiki appeared to be text, along with some illustrative code. Nothing that I saw on the pages I was able to review would appear to constitute a “technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.” In fact, the authors had apparently not yet succeeded in their reverse engineering efforts and were simply discussing Apple’s code obfuscation techniques. If Apple is suggesting that the DMCA reaches people merely talking about technical protection measures, then they’ve got a serious First Amendment problem. Translation: Apple — go get your fucking shinebox. Posted in ass hat, copyright, First Amendment, internet law   Tagged: Apple, Cease-and-Desist, DMCA, First Amendment    tag:odeo.com,2008-11-29,23697910 Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:27:11 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader apple, copyright, dmca, first amendment, Internet Law, ass hat, Cease-and-Desist http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23670801-Lawyers-not-on-Twitter Blawg Review #186 at the Res Ipsa Blog is following the Twitter War that just broke out in the blawgosphere. David Giacalone a lawyer who writes in haiku verse, not tweets, takes a full post on his weblog f/k/a to knock Twitter and lawyers who tweet, knowing full well some might call him a twit, or worse. Kevin O'Keefe at LexBlog, an enthusiastic twitterer and rabid blogger who knows an invitation to a blog fight when he sees one, takes the link bait, and weighs in rather heavily against Giacalone. Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice tags Giacalone, and hits O'Keefe 'til his statcounter begs for mercy. Don't think we've heard the end of this. Lawyers have been arguing for years about whether other lawyers are unprofessional if they call their weblogs "blawgs" so it's not surprising that they're now debating whether it's good for lawyers to "tweet" on Twitter. Remember, they're lawyers. Yes, they're bloggers, too. And that's how we know them. All good friends of Blawg Review; David Gi... Blawg Review #186 at the Res Ipsa Blog is following the Twitter War that just broke out in the blawgosphere. David Giacalone a lawyer who writes in haiku verse, not tweets, takes a full post on his weblog f/k/a to knock Twitter and lawyers who tweet, knowing full well some might call him a twit, or worse. Kevin O'Keefe at LexBlog, an enthusiastic twitterer and rabid blogger who knows an invitation to a blog fight when he sees one, takes the link bait, and weighs in rather heavily against Giacalone. Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice tags Giacalone, and hits O'Keefe 'til his statcounter begs for mercy. Don't think we've heard the end of this. Lawyers have been arguing for years about whether other lawyers are unprofessional if they call their weblogs "blawgs" so it's not surprising that they're now debating whether it's good for lawyers to "tweet" on Twitter. Remember, they're lawyers. Yes, they're bloggers, too. And that's how we know them. All good friends of Blawg Review; David Giacalone hosted #52, Kevin O'Keefe hosted #125, and Scott Greenfield hosted #170. Twitter helps us get to know them better, and more like them, so it's all good. Barack Obama, a lawyer who blogs and tweets knowing it enables him to reach like-minded people who'd like to know him better, and who can help him succeed, is "following" Blawg Review on Twitter. We're audaciously hoping, if he's not too busy January 19, 2009, he'll host Blawg Review on MLK Day. Blawg Review #186 at the Res Ipsa Blog is following the Twitter War that just broke out in the blawgosphere. David Giacalone a lawyer who writes in haiku verse, not tweets, takes a full post on his weblog f/k/a to knock Twitter and lawyers who tweet, knowing full well some might call him a twit, or worse. Kevin O'Keefe at LexBlog, an enthusiastic twitterer and rabid blogger who knows an invitation to a blog fight when he sees one, takes the link bait, and weighs in rather heavily against Giacalone. Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice tags Giacalone, and hits O'Keefe 'til his statcounter begs for mercy. Don't think we've heard the end of this. Lawyers have been arguing for years about whether other lawyers are unprofessional if they call their weblogs "blawgs" so it's not surprising that they're now debating whether it's good for lawyers to "tweet" on Twitter. Remember, they're lawyers. Yes, they're bloggers, too. And that's how we know them. All good friends of Blawg Review; David Giacalone hosted #52, Kevin O'Keefe hosted #125, and Scott Greenfield hosted #170. Twitter helps us get to know them better, and more like them, so it's all good. Barack Obama, a lawyer who blogs and tweets knowing it enables him to reach like-minded people who'd like to know him better, and who can help him succeed, is "following" Blawg Review on Twitter. We're audaciously hoping, if he's not too busy January 19, 2009, he'll host Blawg Review on MLK Day. tag:odeo.com,2008-11-17,23670801 Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:45:17 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23725961-Lawyers-not-on-Twitter Blawg Review #186 at the Res Ipsa Blog is following the Twitter War that just broke out in the blawgosphere. David Giacalone a lawyer who writes in haiku verse, not tweets, takes a full post on his weblog f/k/a to knock Twitter and lawyers who tweet, knowing full well some might call him a twit, or worse. Kevin O'Keefe at LexBlog, an enthusiastic twitterer and rabid blogger who knows an invitation to a blog fight when he sees one, takes the link bait, and weighs in rather heavily against Giacalone. Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice tags Giacalone, and hits O'Keefe 'til his statcounter begs for mercy. Don't think we've heard the end of this. Lawyers have been arguing for years about whether other lawyers are unprofessional if they call their weblogs "blawgs" so it's not surprising that they're now debating whether it's good for lawyers to "tweet" on Twitter. Remember, they're lawyers. Yes, they're bloggers, too. And that's how we know them. All good friends of Blawg Review; David Gi... Blawg Review #186 at the Res Ipsa Blog is following the Twitter War that just broke out in the blawgosphere. David Giacalone a lawyer who writes in haiku verse, not tweets, takes a full post on his weblog f/k/a to knock Twitter and lawyers who tweet, knowing full well some might call him a twit, or worse. Kevin O'Keefe at LexBlog, an enthusiastic twitterer and rabid blogger who knows an invitation to a blog fight when he sees one, takes the link bait, and weighs in rather heavily against Giacalone. Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice tags Giacalone, and hits O'Keefe 'til his statcounter begs for mercy. Don't think we've heard the end of this. Lawyers have been arguing for years about whether other lawyers are unprofessional if they call their weblogs "blawgs" so it's not surprising that they're now debating whether it's good for lawyers to "tweet" on Twitter. Remember, they're lawyers. Yes, they're bloggers, too. And that's how we know them. All good friends of Blawg Review; David Giacalone hosted #52, Kevin O'Keefe hosted #125, and Scott Greenfield hosted #170. Twitter helps us get to know them better, and more like them, so it's all good. Barack Obama, a lawyer who blogs and tweets knowing it enables him to reach like-minded people who'd like to know him better, and who can help him succeed, is "following" Blawg Review on Twitter. We're audaciously hoping, if he's not too busy January 19, 2009, he'll host Blawg Review on MLK Day. Blawg Review #186 at the Res Ipsa Blog is following the Twitter War that just broke out in the blawgosphere. David Giacalone a lawyer who writes in haiku verse, not tweets, takes a full post on his weblog f/k/a to knock Twitter and lawyers who tweet, knowing full well some might call him a twit, or worse. Kevin O'Keefe at LexBlog, an enthusiastic twitterer and rabid blogger who knows an invitation to a blog fight when he sees one, takes the link bait, and weighs in rather heavily against Giacalone. Scott Greenfield at Simple Justice tags Giacalone, and hits O'Keefe 'til his statcounter begs for mercy. Don't think we've heard the end of this. Lawyers have been arguing for years about whether other lawyers are unprofessional if they call their weblogs "blawgs" so it's not surprising that they're now debating whether it's good for lawyers to "tweet" on Twitter. Remember, they're lawyers. Yes, they're bloggers, too. And that's how we know them. All good friends of Blawg Review; David Giacalone hosted #52, Kevin O'Keefe hosted #125, and Scott Greenfield hosted #170. Twitter helps us get to know them better, and more like them, so it's all good. Barack Obama, a lawyer who blogs and tweets knowing it enables him to reach like-minded people who'd like to know him better, and who can help him succeed, is "following" Blawg Review on Twitter. We're audaciously hoping, if he's not too busy January 19, 2009, he'll host Blawg Review on MLK Day. tag:odeo.com,2008-11-17,23725961 Mon, 17 Nov 2008 03:45:17 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23725962-Classmates-com-User-Sues-Schoolmates-Weren-t-Really-Looking-for-Him When Classmates.com told user Anthony Michaels last Christmas Eve that his former school chums were trying to contact him, he pulled out his wallet and upgraded to the premium membership that would let him contact long-lost fifth-grade dodge-ball buddies and see if his secret crush from high school had looked him up online. But once he'd parted with the $15, Michaels learned the shocking truth: No one he knew was trying to contact him at all. Classmates.com's come-on was a lie, and he'd been scammed. At least that's what the San Diego resident alleges in a lawsuit (.pdf) filed against one of the net's original social networking sites, whose banner ads featuring unflattering yearbook pictures remain a staple around the internet. If the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, succeeds, it could raise the minimum standards of honesty for online businesses. "Upon logging into his Gold Membership profile in order to view the classmate contacts … Plaintiff discovered that in fact, ... When Classmates.com told user Anthony Michaels last Christmas Eve that his former school chums were trying to contact him, he pulled out his wallet and upgraded to the premium membership that would let him contact long-lost fifth-grade dodge-ball buddies and see if his secret crush from high school had looked him up online. But once he'd parted with the $15, Michaels learned the shocking truth: No one he knew was trying to contact him at all. Classmates.com's come-on was a lie, and he'd been scammed. At least that's what the San Diego resident alleges in a lawsuit (.pdf) filed against one of the net's original social networking sites, whose banner ads featuring unflattering yearbook pictures remain a staple around the internet. If the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, succeeds, it could raise the minimum standards of honesty for online businesses. "Upon logging into his Gold Membership profile in order to view the classmate contacts … Plaintiff discovered that in fact, no former classmate of his had tried to contact him or view his profile," the complaint reads. "Of those www.classmates.com users who were characterized ... as members who viewed Plaintiff's profile, none were former classmates of Plaintiff or persons familiar with or known to Plaintiff for that matter." The putative class action suit, filed in a California state court on October 30, says there are hundreds of thousands of Anthony Michaels around the country who were similarly duped. The lawsuit asks the court to force the company to refund millions in subscription dollars and fine the company for deceptive advertising. Lawsuits that seem funny are not always a laughing matter, according to Scott A. Kamber, a plaintiff's attorney with KamberEdelson. "Cases that seemingly have a similar chuckle factor are rooted in a real consumer fraud that influences a consumer purchase decision," Kamber said. "Sometimes people are defrauded and misled and obviously there is a financial benefit in companies making those claims or they wouldn't do it." Classmates.com could have a good defense, according to internet law expert Mark Rasch, if someone was actually contacting Michaels but was defrauding Classmates.com by claiming to have gone to a certain high school. "Or were they making statements they know to be false to induce a person to pony up the oney for a premium service to learn these statements weren't true?" Rasch asked. "A lot of this comes down to knowledge and intent on the part of Classmates.com." Classmates.com was founded in 1995, years before Friendster, MySpace or Facebook grew popular, and is one of the net's largest advertisers, having spent $30 million in 2005, for example, on online advertising. The company claims to have 40 million registered users, some of whom pay $15 every three months to be able to send and receive messages. The site's billing practices are complained about nearly daily on ConsumerAffairs.com. The suit is not the first legal action accusing a prominent online company of deception. In 2003, Bonzi Software settled a class action lawsuit that alleged its banner ads (which mimicked Windows operating system warnings) were deceptive. And in January, Member Source Media agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint about the company's spam messages that promised consumers, "Congratulations. You've won an iPod video player." While the FTC and state attorneys general have handled some deceptive advertising claims, in tight financial times the burden of online fraud fighting is increasingly falling on class-action attorneys, according to Kamber. "Attorney General offices are seriously under budget pressure and federal enforcement in last eight last years has not been picking up the slack for the state budget issues," Kamber said. "That leaves class action attorneys on the front line of technology in the consumer area." Neither Classmates.com nor Michaels' law firm, Kabateck, Brown and Kellner, responded to requests for comment. Attorney Eric Sinrod, a partner at Duane Morris in San Francisco and a legal columnist at Findlaw, says that legitmate companies make a better target for lawsuits than outright scammers, like those sending fraudulent offers of long-lost Nigerian fortunes. "Classmates.com is not some fly-by-night company -- it is a real service, not something being operated by unknown people offshore," Sinrod said. "So they are subject to U.S. law and regulators if they are conduct themselves improperly." When Classmates.com told user Anthony Michaels last Christmas Eve that his former school chums were trying to contact him, he pulled out his wallet and upgraded to the premium membership that would let him contact long-lost fifth-grade dodge-ball buddies and see if his secret crush from high school had looked him up online. But once he'd parted with the $15, Michaels learned the shocking truth: No one he knew was trying to contact him at all. Classmates.com's come-on was a lie, and he'd been scammed. At least that's what the San Diego resident alleges in a lawsuit (.pdf) filed against one of the net's original social networking sites, whose banner ads featuring unflattering yearbook pictures remain a staple around the internet. If the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, succeeds, it could raise the minimum standards of honesty for online businesses. "Upon logging into his Gold Membership profile in order to view the classmate contacts … Plaintiff discovered that in fact, no former classmate of his had tried to contact him or view his profile," the complaint reads. "Of those www.classmates.com users who were characterized ... as members who viewed Plaintiff's profile, none were former classmates of Plaintiff or persons familiar with or known to Plaintiff for that matter." The putative class action suit, filed in a California state court on October 30, says there are hundreds of thousands of Anthony Michaels around the country who were similarly duped. The lawsuit asks the court to force the company to refund millions in subscription dollars and fine the company for deceptive advertising. Lawsuits that seem funny are not always a laughing matter, according to Scott A. Kamber, a plaintiff's attorney with KamberEdelson. "Cases that seemingly have a similar chuckle factor are rooted in a real consumer fraud that influences a consumer purchase decision," Kamber said. "Sometimes people are defrauded and misled and obviously there is a financial benefit in companies making those claims or they wouldn't do it." Classmates.com could have a good defense, according to internet law expert Mark Rasch, if someone was actually contacting Michaels but was defrauding Classmates.com by claiming to have gone to a certain high school. "Or were they making statements they know to be false to induce a person to pony up the oney for a premium service to learn these statements weren't true?" Rasch asked. "A lot of this comes down to knowledge and intent on the part of Classmates.com." Classmates.com was founded in 1995, years before Friendster, MySpace or Facebook grew popular, and is one of the net's largest advertisers, having spent $30 million in 2005, for example, on online advertising. The company claims to have 40 million registered users, some of whom pay $15 every three months to be able to send and receive messages. The site's billing practices are complained about nearly daily on ConsumerAffairs.com. The suit is not the first legal action accusing a prominent online company of deception. In 2003, Bonzi Software settled a class action lawsuit that alleged its banner ads (which mimicked Windows operating system warnings) were deceptive. And in January, Member Source Media agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint about the company's spam messages that promised consumers, "Congratulations. You've won an iPod video player." While the FTC and state attorneys general have handled some deceptive advertising claims, in tight financial times the burden of online fraud fighting is increasingly falling on class-action attorneys, according to Kamber. "Attorney General offices are seriously under budget pressure and federal enforcement in last eight last years has not been picking up the slack for the state budget issues," Kamber said. "That leaves class action attorneys on the front line of technology in the consumer area." Neither Classmates.com nor Michaels' law firm, Kabateck, Brown and Kellner, responded to requests for comment. Attorney Eric Sinrod, a partner at Duane Morris in San Francisco and a legal columnist at Findlaw, says that legitmate companies make a better target for lawsuits than outright scammers, like those sending fraudulent offers of long-lost Nigerian fortunes. "Classmates.com is not some fly-by-night company -- it is a real service, not something being operated by unknown people offshore," Sinrod said. "So they are subject to U.S. law and regulators if they are conduct themselves improperly." tag:odeo.com,2008-11-11,23725962 Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:00:00 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23613677-Classmates-com-User-Sues-Schoolmates-Weren-t-Really-Looking-for-Him When Classmates.com told user Anthony Michaels last Christmas Eve that his former school chums were trying to contact him, he pulled out his wallet and upgraded to the premium membership that would let him contact long-lost fifth-grade dodge-ball buddies and see if his secret crush from high school had looked him up online. But once he'd parted with the $15, Michaels learned the shocking truth: No one he knew was trying to contact him at all. Classmates.com's come-on was a lie, and he'd been scammed. At least that's what the San Diego resident alleges in a lawsuit (.pdf) filed against one of the net's original social networking sites, whose banner ads featuring unflattering yearbook pictures remain a staple around the internet. If the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, succeeds, it could raise the minimum standards of honesty for online businesses. "Upon logging into his Gold Membership profile in order to view the classmate contacts … Plaintiff discovered that in fact, ... When Classmates.com told user Anthony Michaels last Christmas Eve that his former school chums were trying to contact him, he pulled out his wallet and upgraded to the premium membership that would let him contact long-lost fifth-grade dodge-ball buddies and see if his secret crush from high school had looked him up online. But once he'd parted with the $15, Michaels learned the shocking truth: No one he knew was trying to contact him at all. Classmates.com's come-on was a lie, and he'd been scammed. At least that's what the San Diego resident alleges in a lawsuit (.pdf) filed against one of the net's original social networking sites, whose banner ads featuring unflattering yearbook pictures remain a staple around the internet. If the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, succeeds, it could raise the minimum standards of honesty for online businesses. "Upon logging into his Gold Membership profile in order to view the classmate contacts … Plaintiff discovered that in fact, no former classmate of his had tried to contact him or view his profile," the complaint reads. "Of those www.classmates.com users who were characterized ... as members who viewed Plaintiff's profile, none were former classmates of Plaintiff or persons familiar with or known to Plaintiff for that matter." The putative class action suit, filed in a California state court on October 30, says there are hundreds of thousands of Anthony Michaels around the country who were similarly duped. The lawsuit asks the court to force the company to refund millions in subscription dollars and fine the company for deceptive advertising. Lawsuits that seem funny are not always a laughing matter, according to Scott A. Kamber, a plaintiff's attorney with KamberEdelson. "Cases that seemingly have a similar chuckle factor are rooted in a real consumer fraud that influences a consumer purchase decision," Kamber said. "Sometimes people are defrauded and misled and obviously there is a financial benefit in companies making those claims or they wouldn't do it." Classmates.com could have a good defense, according to internet law expert Mark Rasch, if someone was actually contacting Michaels but was defrauding Classmates.com by claiming to have gone to a certain high school. "Or were they making statements they know to be false to induce a person to pony up the oney for a premium service to learn these statements weren't true?" Rasch asked. "A lot of this comes down to knowledge and intent on the part of Classmates.com." Classmates.com was founded in 1995, years before Friendster, MySpace or Facebook grew popular, and is one of the net's largest advertisers, having spent $30 million in 2005, for example, on online advertising. The company claims to have 40 million registered users, some of whom pay $15 every three months to be able to send and receive messages. The site's billing practices are complained about nearly daily on ConsumerAffairs.com. The suit is not the first legal action accusing a prominent online company of deception. In 2003, Bonzi Software settled a class action lawsuit that alleged its banner ads (which mimicked Windows operating system warnings) were deceptive. And in January, Member Source Media agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint about the company's spam messages that promised consumers, "Congratulations. You've won an iPod video player." While the FTC and state attorneys general have handled some deceptive advertising claims, in tight financial times the burden of online fraud fighting is increasingly falling on class-action attorneys, according to Kamber. "Attorney General offices are seriously under budget pressure and federal enforcement in last eight last years has not been picking up the slack for the state budget issues," Kamber said. "That leaves class action attorneys on the front line of technology in the consumer area." Neither Classmates.com nor Michaels' law firm, Kabateck, Brown and Kellner, responded to requests for comment. Attorney Eric Sinrod, a partner at Duane Morris in San Francisco and a legal columnist at Findlaw, says that legitmate companies make a better target for lawsuits than outright scammers, like those sending fraudulent offers of long-lost Nigerian fortunes. "Classmates.com is not some fly-by-night company -- it is a real service, not something being operated by unknown people offshore," Sinrod said. "So they are subject to U.S. law and regulators if they are conduct themselves improperly." When Classmates.com told user Anthony Michaels last Christmas Eve that his former school chums were trying to contact him, he pulled out his wallet and upgraded to the premium membership that would let him contact long-lost fifth-grade dodge-ball buddies and see if his secret crush from high school had looked him up online. But once he'd parted with the $15, Michaels learned the shocking truth: No one he knew was trying to contact him at all. Classmates.com's come-on was a lie, and he'd been scammed. At least that's what the San Diego resident alleges in a lawsuit (.pdf) filed against one of the net's original social networking sites, whose banner ads featuring unflattering yearbook pictures remain a staple around the internet. If the lawsuit, which is seeking class action status, succeeds, it could raise the minimum standards of honesty for online businesses. "Upon logging into his Gold Membership profile in order to view the classmate contacts … Plaintiff discovered that in fact, no former classmate of his had tried to contact him or view his profile," the complaint reads. "Of those www.classmates.com users who were characterized ... as members who viewed Plaintiff's profile, none were former classmates of Plaintiff or persons familiar with or known to Plaintiff for that matter." The putative class action suit, filed in a California state court on October 30, says there are hundreds of thousands of Anthony Michaels around the country who were similarly duped. The lawsuit asks the court to force the company to refund millions in subscription dollars and fine the company for deceptive advertising. Lawsuits that seem funny are not always a laughing matter, according to Scott A. Kamber, a plaintiff's attorney with KamberEdelson. "Cases that seemingly have a similar chuckle factor are rooted in a real consumer fraud that influences a consumer purchase decision," Kamber said. "Sometimes people are defrauded and misled and obviously there is a financial benefit in companies making those claims or they wouldn't do it." Classmates.com could have a good defense, according to internet law expert Mark Rasch, if someone was actually contacting Michaels but was defrauding Classmates.com by claiming to have gone to a certain high school. "Or were they making statements they know to be false to induce a person to pony up the oney for a premium service to learn these statements weren't true?" Rasch asked. "A lot of this comes down to knowledge and intent on the part of Classmates.com." Classmates.com was founded in 1995, years before Friendster, MySpace or Facebook grew popular, and is one of the net's largest advertisers, having spent $30 million in 2005, for example, on online advertising. The company claims to have 40 million registered users, some of whom pay $15 every three months to be able to send and receive messages. The site's billing practices are complained about nearly daily on ConsumerAffairs.com. The suit is not the first legal action accusing a prominent online company of deception. In 2003, Bonzi Software settled a class action lawsuit that alleged its banner ads (which mimicked Windows operating system warnings) were deceptive. And in January, Member Source Media agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a Federal Trade Commission complaint about the company's spam messages that promised consumers, "Congratulations. You've won an iPod video player." While the FTC and state attorneys general have handled some deceptive advertising claims, in tight financial times the burden of online fraud fighting is increasingly falling on class-action attorneys, according to Kamber. "Attorney General offices are seriously under budget pressure and federal enforcement in last eight last years has not been picking up the slack for the state budget issues," Kamber said. "That leaves class action attorneys on the front line of technology in the consumer area." Neither Classmates.com nor Michaels' law firm, Kabateck, Brown and Kellner, responded to requests for comment. Attorney Eric Sinrod, a partner at Duane Morris in San Francisco and a legal columnist at Findlaw, says that legitmate companies make a better target for lawsuits than outright scammers, like those sending fraudulent offers of long-lost Nigerian fortunes. "Classmates.com is not some fly-by-night company -- it is a real service, not something being operated by unknown people offshore," Sinrod said. "So they are subject to U.S. law and regulators if they are conduct themselves improperly." tag:odeo.com,2008-11-11,23613677 Tue, 11 Nov 2008 21:00:00 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23725963-TWiL-18-Dispatches-from-the-Electronic-Frontier Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 tag:odeo.com,2008-10-18,23725963 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:53:13 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Technology, News, law http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23666609-TWiL-18-Dispatches-from-the-Electronic-Frontier Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 tag:odeo.com,2008-10-18,23666609 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:53:13 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Technology, News, law http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23519940-TWiL-18-Dispatches-from-the-Electronic-Frontier Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 tag:odeo.com,2008-10-18,23519940 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:53:13 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Technology, News, law http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23518200-TWiL-18-Dispatches-from-the-Electronic-Frontier Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 Hosts: Denise Howell, Colette Vogele, Evan Brown and Karl Susman The McCain-YouTube DMCA takedown letter discussion, LimeWire, and more. Guest: Fred von Lohmann of the Electronic Frontier Foundation Talking points: http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/18. Audible pick: All Creatures Great and Small, Unabridged, By James Herriot, Narrated by Christopher Timothy. For a free audiobook, visit AudiblePodcast.com/twil. Thanks to Victor Cajiao for editing help. Victor produces the Typical Mac User Podcast. Thanks to Cachefly for the bandwidth for this show. Running time: 1:09:27 tag:odeo.com,2008-10-18,23518200 Sat, 18 Oct 2008 08:53:13 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Technology, News, law http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23736458-Copyright-Czar President-Elect Barack Obama, I am officially entering the race to be the next Copyright Czar. I would love the opportunity to talk with you to discuss why I am the right candidate for this position. * Wired Nominees. * Will Obama's copyright czar help save the music? * pdf: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act President-Elect Barack Obama, I am officially entering the race to be the next Copyright Czar. I would love the opportunity to talk with you to discuss why I am the right candidate for this position. * Wired Nominees. * Will Obama's copyright czar help save the music? * pdf: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act President-Elect Barack Obama, I am officially entering the race to be the next Copyright Czar. I would love the opportunity to talk with you to discuss why I am the right candidate for this position. * Wired Nominees. * Will Obama's copyright czar help save the music? * pdf: Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act tag:odeo.com,2008-10-15,23736458 Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:37:35 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader about me http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23485601-Google-Profiting-From-Typo-Squatting-Report-Charges Google is profiting from millions of typo-squatting websites that earn advertising from Google's Adsense advertising program, Harvard University professor Ben Edelman says. In a report published Monday, Edelman says Google profits from typo-squatting websites that run ads using Google's Adsense — which, ironically, are often bought by the owners of the legitimate sites web surfers were trying to visit. "This is one of the unsavory ways we all end up paying Google," Edelman says in an interview. "Users don't have to write Google a check to receive Google's services. But, one way or another, Google manages to get users' money." Typo-squatting sites are found at domains that have one letter different from legitimate, trademarked domains — bankofdamerica.com, for instance, as depicted in the screenshot above, which has a "d" in the URL. Typo-squatting has been around since the beginning of the web, but until recently, typo-squatters had limited ... Google is profiting from millions of typo-squatting websites that earn advertising from Google's Adsense advertising program, Harvard University professor Ben Edelman says. In a report published Monday, Edelman says Google profits from typo-squatting websites that run ads using Google's Adsense — which, ironically, are often bought by the owners of the legitimate sites web surfers were trying to visit. "This is one of the unsavory ways we all end up paying Google," Edelman says in an interview. "Users don't have to write Google a check to receive Google's services. But, one way or another, Google manages to get users' money." Typo-squatting sites are found at domains that have one letter different from legitimate, trademarked domains — bankofdamerica.com, for instance, as depicted in the screenshot above, which has a "d" in the URL. Typo-squatting has been around since the beginning of the web, but until recently, typo-squatters had limited means of profiting from surfers' bad spelling or clumsy typing. But using Google's Adsense for Domains (AFD) program, typo-squatters fill their sites with sponsored links that often point to the legitimate domain. If a misdirected surfer hits a sponsored link, the legitimate domain owner ends up paying the typo-squatter for that referral, and Google as well. The typo-squatter Bankofdamerica.com, for example, has a sponsored link to the real Bank of America website. Typo-squatting, Edelman says, is illegal. "There sure are a lot of these sites, in the millions," Edelman said. "The overall majority show Google ads." Google reported net income of $1.25 billion for the quarter ending June 30 on revenue of $5.37 billion. Advertising generates about 99 percent of Google's revenue, according to its financial statement. Google says in a court filing that it has "no reason to know" whether a domain in its advertising program "could infringe a valid trademark." Edelman, an assistant professor at the Harvard Business School and an advisor to McAfee, says there are as many as 80,000 domains "typo-squatting" on the United States' top 2,000 websites alone, including MySpace, FaceBook and Craigslist. Edelman's report, published in the McAfee Security Journal (.pdf), shows that there are as many as 251 typo-squatted domains associated with Bank of America alone, and there are as many as 327 typo-squatted domains feeding off the cartoonnetwork.com site. Edelman and other lawyers have filed a class action lawsuit representing domain owners who claim the Google Adsense for Domains (AFD) program is assisting in violating trademarks. A hearing is scheduled for as early as next month in which Edelman will ask an Illinois federal judge to allow the case against Google to proceed. The Mountain View, California, company did not respond for comment on how much revenue is generated via typo-squatting. But Google attorney Maria Moran says Edelman's allegations are "misguided," and that Google is doing nothing illegal because it "merely distributes third-party advertisements." Google is immune from liability, she adds. "Google's sweeping trademark protection policies provide that Google will immediately remove any allegedly infringing domains from its AFD program at the request of the trademark holder." Edelman, however, said Google is attempting to confuse two laws: the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA "safe harbor" provision protects sites from claims that they host copyright infringing material if that material was put there by users and if the sites remove material upon notice from copyright holders. Google relies on the safe harbor provisions to avoid liability for videos posted on its YouTube site, for example. But Edelman says Google is wrong to try to invoke a notification safe harbor as a defense to typo-squatting.  "There is no similar safe harbor doctrine as to trademark infringement or typo-squatting," Edelman says. The law simply says, "do not typo-squat. Do not register, traffic in or use infringing domain names or confusingly similar names of trademarks," Edelman says, referring to the Anti-cybersquatting Çonsumer Protection Act of 1999. Google says in response to the lawsuit that it "has no way to know — and no reason to know — whether a given domain in the AFD program could infringe a valid trademark," Google's Moran writes. "And even if Google did somehow have the ability to pluck out those domains which could infringe a valid trademark, Google has no way to know who has registered the domain, be it an infringer, a licensee of the trademark owner or the trademark owner itself." Google is profiting from millions of typo-squatting websites that earn advertising from Google's Adsense advertising program, Harvard University professor Ben Edelman says. In a report published Monday, Edelman says Google profits from typo-squatting websites that run ads using Google's Adsense — which, ironically, are often bought by the owners of the legitimate sites web surfers were trying to visit. "This is one of the unsavory ways we all end up paying Google," Edelman says in an interview. "Users don't have to write Google a check to receive Google's services. But, one way or another, Google manages to get users' money." Typo-squatting sites are found at domains that have one letter different from legitimate, trademarked domains — bankofdamerica.com, for instance, as depicted in the screenshot above, which has a "d" in the URL. Typo-squatting has been around since the beginning of the web, but until recently, typo-squatters had limited means of profiting from surfers' bad spelling or clumsy typing. But using Google's Adsense for Domains (AFD) program, typo-squatters fill their sites with sponsored links that often point to the legitimate domain. If a misdirected surfer hits a sponsored link, the legitimate domain owner ends up paying the typo-squatter for that referral, and Google as well. The typo-squatter Bankofdamerica.com, for example, has a sponsored link to the real Bank of America website. Typo-squatting, Edelman says, is illegal. "There sure are a lot of these sites, in the millions," Edelman said. "The overall majority show Google ads." Google reported net income of $1.25 billion for the quarter ending June 30 on revenue of $5.37 billion. Advertising generates about 99 percent of Google's revenue, according to its financial statement. Google says in a court filing that it has "no reason to know" whether a domain in its advertising program "could infringe a valid trademark." Edelman, an assistant professor at the Harvard Business School and an advisor to McAfee, says there are as many as 80,000 domains "typo-squatting" on the United States' top 2,000 websites alone, including MySpace, FaceBook and Craigslist. Edelman's report, published in the McAfee Security Journal (.pdf), shows that there are as many as 251 typo-squatted domains associated with Bank of America alone, and there are as many as 327 typo-squatted domains feeding off the cartoonnetwork.com site. Edelman and other lawyers have filed a class action lawsuit representing domain owners who claim the Google Adsense for Domains (AFD) program is assisting in violating trademarks. A hearing is scheduled for as early as next month in which Edelman will ask an Illinois federal judge to allow the case against Google to proceed. The Mountain View, California, company did not respond for comment on how much revenue is generated via typo-squatting. But Google attorney Maria Moran says Edelman's allegations are "misguided," and that Google is doing nothing illegal because it "merely distributes third-party advertisements." Google is immune from liability, she adds. "Google's sweeping trademark protection policies provide that Google will immediately remove any allegedly infringing domains from its AFD program at the request of the trademark holder." Edelman, however, said Google is attempting to confuse two laws: the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The DMCA "safe harbor" provision protects sites from claims that they host copyright infringing material if that material was put there by users and if the sites remove material upon notice from copyright holders. Google relies on the safe harbor provisions to avoid liability for videos posted on its YouTube site, for example. But Edelman says Google is wrong to try to invoke a notification safe harbor as a defense to typo-squatting.  "There is no similar safe harbor doctrine as to trademark infringement or typo-squatting," Edelman says. The law simply says, "do not typo-squat. Do not register, traffic in or use infringing domain names or confusingly similar names of trademarks," Edelman says, referring to the Anti-cybersquatting Çonsumer Protection Act of 1999. Google says in response to the lawsuit that it "has no way to know — and no reason to know — whether a given domain in the AFD program could infringe a valid trademark," Google's Moran writes. "And even if Google did somehow have the ability to pluck out those domains which could infringe a valid trademark, Google has no way to know who has registered the domain, be it an infringer, a licensee of the trademark owner or the trademark owner itself." tag:odeo.com,2008-10-13,23485601 Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:43:31 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader intellectual property http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23469456-NSA-Snooped-on-Innocent-Americans-Private-Calls-from-Iraq-Former-Operators-Charge The National Security Agency routinely listened in on the intimate and innocent phone calls of Americans in Iraq, including government personnel, journalists and aid workers, as they called back into the United States, according to two former NSA operators who spoke to ABC News. The accusations that the NSA routinely listened in on Americans' phone calls contradicts the Administration's repeated claims that its secret spying did not listen to any Americans other than suspected terrorists. The conduct also appears to violate the rules that govern when the NSA can listen in to Americans' making calls overseas-- which then required high-level approval for each target. The two operators, who ABC News say do not know one other, came forward after speaking with the foremost chronicler of the NSA, James Bamford, whose new book the Shadow Factorycomes out on Tuesday. ABC News reports: "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our... The National Security Agency routinely listened in on the intimate and innocent phone calls of Americans in Iraq, including government personnel, journalists and aid workers, as they called back into the United States, according to two former NSA operators who spoke to ABC News. The accusations that the NSA routinely listened in on Americans' phone calls contradicts the Administration's repeated claims that its secret spying did not listen to any Americans other than suspected terrorists. The conduct also appears to violate the rules that govern when the NSA can listen in to Americans' making calls overseas-- which then required high-level approval for each target. The two operators, who ABC News say do not know one other, came forward after speaking with the foremost chronicler of the NSA, James Bamford, whose new book the Shadow Factorycomes out on Tuesday. ABC News reports: "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003. Kinne described the contents of the calls as "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism." Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad's Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007. Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator's computer. "Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'," Faulk told ABC News. It's not clear whether the allegations refer to the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program that the Administration admitted to running after the New York Times revealed its existence in December 2005. The government describes that program as listening into phone calls where one end is outside the United States and where one party is suspected of being a terrorist. That program likely intercepted phone calls with help from American telecom companies. The program described by the operators in the ABC News story likely collected the intelligence outside the United States. Kinne's allegations are not new -- she's been making them public for sometime as part of her involvement in the Iraq Veterans Against the War. If the allegations are true, they show that when the government secretly tossed aside the decades-old credo that the NSA doesn't spy on Americans, it did not simply make one or two exceptions -- it shredded the it. ABC Newssays the head of the Senate Intelligence committee Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is disturbed by the news and pledges to look into it. However, it fails to note that Rockefeller was the key lawmaker in this summer's legislation that largely legalized the government's formerly secret warrantless wiretap program and gave immunity to the companies that helped. Threat Level will have more next week with the release of Bamford's book and a tag team Danger Room/Threat Level interview with Bamford. See Also: Attorney General Pulls the Immunity Trigger, But Denies 'Dragnet ... Rights Group Suing AT&T for Spying Sues NSA and Cheney, Too Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to ... Feds Use Phone Bills to Get Journo's Sources on NSA Spy Program Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to ... Bush Signs Spy Bill, ACLU Sues Secret Spying Court Stays Secret, Rejects ACLU Plea Again Photo: JosephTate73/Flickr The National Security Agency routinely listened in on the intimate and innocent phone calls of Americans in Iraq, including government personnel, journalists and aid workers, as they called back into the United States, according to two former NSA operators who spoke to ABC News. The accusations that the NSA routinely listened in on Americans' phone calls contradicts the Administration's repeated claims that its secret spying did not listen to any Americans other than suspected terrorists. The conduct also appears to violate the rules that govern when the NSA can listen in to Americans' making calls overseas-- which then required high-level approval for each target. The two operators, who ABC News say do not know one other, came forward after speaking with the foremost chronicler of the NSA, James Bamford, whose new book the Shadow Factorycomes out on Tuesday. ABC News reports: "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003. Kinne described the contents of the calls as "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism." Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad's Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007. Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator's computer. "Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'," Faulk told ABC News. It's not clear whether the allegations refer to the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program that the Administration admitted to running after the New York Times revealed its existence in December 2005. The government describes that program as listening into phone calls where one end is outside the United States and where one party is suspected of being a terrorist. That program likely intercepted phone calls with help from American telecom companies. The program described by the operators in the ABC News story likely collected the intelligence outside the United States. Kinne's allegations are not new -- she's been making them public for sometime as part of her involvement in the Iraq Veterans Against the War. If the allegations are true, they show that when the government secretly tossed aside the decades-old credo that the NSA doesn't spy on Americans, it did not simply make one or two exceptions -- it shredded the it. ABC Newssays the head of the Senate Intelligence committee Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is disturbed by the news and pledges to look into it. However, it fails to note that Rockefeller was the key lawmaker in this summer's legislation that largely legalized the government's formerly secret warrantless wiretap program and gave immunity to the companies that helped. Threat Level will have more next week with the release of Bamford's book and a tag team Danger Room/Threat Level interview with Bamford. See Also: Attorney General Pulls the Immunity Trigger, But Denies 'Dragnet ... Rights Group Suing AT&T for Spying Sues NSA and Cheney, Too Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to ... Feds Use Phone Bills to Get Journo's Sources on NSA Spy Program Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to ... Bush Signs Spy Bill, ACLU Sues Secret Spying Court Stays Secret, Rejects ACLU Plea Again Photo: JosephTate73/Flickr tag:odeo.com,2008-10-09,23469456 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:01:30 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader NSA http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23519941-NSA-Snooped-on-Innocent-Americans-Private-Calls-from-Iraq-Former-Operators-Charge The National Security Agency routinely listened in on the intimate and innocent phone calls of Americans in Iraq, including government personnel, journalists and aid workers, as they called back into the United States, according to two former NSA operators who spoke to ABC News. The accusations that the NSA routinely listened in on Americans' phone calls contradicts the Administration's repeated claims that its secret spying did not listen to any Americans other than suspected terrorists. The conduct also appears to violate the rules that govern when the NSA can listen in to Americans' making calls overseas-- which then required high-level approval for each target. The two operators, who ABC News say do not know one other, came forward after speaking with the foremost chronicler of the NSA, James Bamford, whose new book the Shadow Factorycomes out on Tuesday. ABC News reports: "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our... The National Security Agency routinely listened in on the intimate and innocent phone calls of Americans in Iraq, including government personnel, journalists and aid workers, as they called back into the United States, according to two former NSA operators who spoke to ABC News. The accusations that the NSA routinely listened in on Americans' phone calls contradicts the Administration's repeated claims that its secret spying did not listen to any Americans other than suspected terrorists. The conduct also appears to violate the rules that govern when the NSA can listen in to Americans' making calls overseas-- which then required high-level approval for each target. The two operators, who ABC News say do not know one other, came forward after speaking with the foremost chronicler of the NSA, James Bamford, whose new book the Shadow Factorycomes out on Tuesday. ABC News reports: "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003. Kinne described the contents of the calls as "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism." Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad's Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007. Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator's computer. "Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'," Faulk told ABC News. It's not clear whether the allegations refer to the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program that the Administration admitted to running after the New York Times revealed its existence in December 2005. The government describes that program as listening into phone calls where one end is outside the United States and where one party is suspected of being a terrorist. That program likely intercepted phone calls with help from American telecom companies. The program described by the operators in the ABC News story likely collected the intelligence outside the United States. Kinne's allegations are not new -- she's been making them public for sometime as part of her involvement in the Iraq Veterans Against the War. If the allegations are true, they show that when the government secretly tossed aside the decades-old credo that the NSA doesn't spy on Americans, it did not simply make one or two exceptions -- it shredded the it. ABC Newssays the head of the Senate Intelligence committee Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is disturbed by the news and pledges to look into it. However, it fails to note that Rockefeller was the key lawmaker in this summer's legislation that largely legalized the government's formerly secret warrantless wiretap program and gave immunity to the companies that helped. Threat Level will have more next week with the release of Bamford's book and a tag team Danger Room/Threat Level interview with Bamford. See Also: Attorney General Pulls the Immunity Trigger, But Denies 'Dragnet ... Rights Group Suing AT&T for Spying Sues NSA and Cheney, Too Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to ... Feds Use Phone Bills to Get Journo's Sources on NSA Spy Program Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to ... Bush Signs Spy Bill, ACLU Sues Secret Spying Court Stays Secret, Rejects ACLU Plea Again Photo: JosephTate73/Flickr The National Security Agency routinely listened in on the intimate and innocent phone calls of Americans in Iraq, including government personnel, journalists and aid workers, as they called back into the United States, according to two former NSA operators who spoke to ABC News. The accusations that the NSA routinely listened in on Americans' phone calls contradicts the Administration's repeated claims that its secret spying did not listen to any Americans other than suspected terrorists. The conduct also appears to violate the rules that govern when the NSA can listen in to Americans' making calls overseas-- which then required high-level approval for each target. The two operators, who ABC News say do not know one other, came forward after speaking with the foremost chronicler of the NSA, James Bamford, whose new book the Shadow Factorycomes out on Tuesday. ABC News reports: "These were just really everyday, average, ordinary Americans who happened to be in the Middle East, in our area of intercept and happened to be making these phone calls on satellite phones," said Adrienne Kinne, a 31-year old US Army Reserves Arab linguist assigned to a special military program at the NSA's Back Hall at Fort Gordon from November 2001 to 2003. Kinne described the contents of the calls as "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism." Another intercept operator, former Navy Arab linguist, David Murfee Faulk, 39, said he and his fellow intercept operators listened into hundreds of Americans picked up using phones in Baghdad's Green Zone from late 2003 to November 2007. Faulk says he and others in his section of the NSA facility at Fort Gordon routinely shared salacious or tantalizing phone calls that had been intercepted, alerting office mates to certain time codes of "cuts" that were available on each operator's computer. "Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'," Faulk told ABC News. It's not clear whether the allegations refer to the so-called Terrorist Surveillance Program that the Administration admitted to running after the New York Times revealed its existence in December 2005. The government describes that program as listening into phone calls where one end is outside the United States and where one party is suspected of being a terrorist. That program likely intercepted phone calls with help from American telecom companies. The program described by the operators in the ABC News story likely collected the intelligence outside the United States. Kinne's allegations are not new -- she's been making them public for sometime as part of her involvement in the Iraq Veterans Against the War. If the allegations are true, they show that when the government secretly tossed aside the decades-old credo that the NSA doesn't spy on Americans, it did not simply make one or two exceptions -- it shredded the it. ABC Newssays the head of the Senate Intelligence committee Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is disturbed by the news and pledges to look into it. However, it fails to note that Rockefeller was the key lawmaker in this summer's legislation that largely legalized the government's formerly secret warrantless wiretap program and gave immunity to the companies that helped. Threat Level will have more next week with the release of Bamford's book and a tag team Danger Room/Threat Level interview with Bamford. See Also: Attorney General Pulls the Immunity Trigger, But Denies 'Dragnet ... Rights Group Suing AT&T for Spying Sues NSA and Cheney, Too Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to ... Feds Use Phone Bills to Get Journo's Sources on NSA Spy Program Analysis: NSA Spying Judge Defends Rule of Law, Congress Set to ... Bush Signs Spy Bill, ACLU Sues Secret Spying Court Stays Secret, Rejects ACLU Plea Again Photo: JosephTate73/Flickr tag:odeo.com,2008-10-09,23519941 Thu, 09 Oct 2008 17:01:30 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader NSA http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23469457-Esbin%E2%80%99s-Early-History-of-the-Net-Neutrality-Debate-in-U-S My colleague Barbara Esbin, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, was asked to pen a short history of the net neutrality wars in the U.S. for a French publication, La Lettre de l’Autorité.  Her essay provides an excellent, concise overview of where we’ve come from and where we might be heading on this front.  I’ve pasted the entire essay down below, or you can download the PDF here. ________________________ Net Neutrality Regulation in the United States by Barbara Esbin PFF Progress Snapshot Release 4.21 October 2008 The United States moved closer to “Net Neutrality” regulation this year when the Federal Communications Commission found that Comcast, a cable broadband Internet service provider, violated a set of Internet policy principles the FCC adopted in 2005 by limiting peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic. The ruling was the culmination of a ten-year effort that began as a call for wholesale “open acc... My colleague Barbara Esbin, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, was asked to pen a short history of the net neutrality wars in the U.S. for a French publication, La Lettre de l’Autorité.  Her essay provides an excellent, concise overview of where we’ve come from and where we might be heading on this front.  I’ve pasted the entire essay down below, or you can download the PDF here. ________________________ Net Neutrality Regulation in the United States by Barbara Esbin PFF Progress Snapshot Release 4.21 October 2008 The United States moved closer to “Net Neutrality” regulation this year when the Federal Communications Commission found that Comcast, a cable broadband Internet service provider, violated a set of Internet policy principles the FCC adopted in 2005 by limiting peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic. The ruling was the culmination of a ten-year effort that began as a call for wholesale “open access” to the cable platform for third-party Internet service providers. Requests for open access first emerged in 1998 when the FCC considered AT&T’s acquisition of cable operator TCI. The FCC rejected open access, but the issue quickly re-emerged in a subsequent proceeding to determine the appropriate regulatory classification of cable Internet service. Depending on how the FCC categorized cable Internet service, it would either be subject to telecommunications “common carrier” requirements, “cable service” requirements, or treated as a then-unregulated “information service.” In 2002, the FCC classified cable Internet service as an “information service.” This meant that the telecommunications common carrier requirements — that service be provided upon request, without unreasonable discrimination as to rates, terms and conditions of service — would not apply to cable Internet services. The FCC’s decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in NCTA v. Brand X. Afterwards, advocates of open access re-directed their efforts away from advocating wholesale access for third-party ISPs, and towards rules aimed at consumer rights to a “neutral network” or “net neutrality.” In 2005 the FCC extended its deregulatory “information service” approach to wireline broadband Internet services provided, thus freeing telephone companies of traditional common carrier mandates for these services. The FCC’s decisions not to impose cable open access and to relieve telcos of common carrier obligations reflected a policy of fostering infrastructure deployment through market operations. Concurrently, the FCC released a “Policy Statement,” declaring four “entitlements” that Internet service consumers should enjoy: (1) access to lawful content of their choice; (2) ability to run chosen applications and services; (3) ability to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) competition among network, application and content providers. The Policy Statement expressly stated that the FCC was not adopting rules and that the principles are subject to reasonable network management. The FCC subsequently stated that it would entertain complaints concerning violations of the principles, and in early 2007, the FCC opened an “Inquiry” into broadband industry practices, seeking information about network management and asking whether it should impose rules. In late 2007, an advocacy group filed a Complaint alleging that Comcast had violated the FCC’s Policy Statement by “secretly degrading” BitTorrent traffic, thus interfering with the Internet rights of its subscribers, and that its practices did not constitute reasonable network management. Several months later, Comcast and BitTorrent agreed to work together to resolve network congestion issues through the use of protocol-agnostic network management. Yet on Aug. 20, 2008, the FCC released an Order purporting to rule on the Complaint, finding that Comcast had violated the Internet policy principles, and rejecting its defense that its practices were reasonable. The FCC ruled that Comcast’s network management practices: discriminated among Internet applications and protocols rather than treating all equally; effectively blocked Internet traffic; posed significant risks of anti-competitive abuse; were inconsistent with “an open and accessible Internet;” and that Comcast’s failure to disclose its practices compounded the harms. Alternative means of managing network congestion approved by the FCC include metered usage and throttling the connection speeds of excessive users. This action was said to be an “adjudication,” although traditional agency complaint rules were not followed. Comcast was given 30 days to disclose to the FCC “the precise contours” of its network management practices and describe what it will do instead to address network congestion. The effect of the Order is to establish a fifth “non-discrimination” Internet policy principle, to be implemented by the FCC through case-by-case adjudication of individual complaints rather than ex ante rules. Thus, 10 years later, and without explicit acknowledgment, the FCC has effectively abandoned its “hands off” approach and imposed a form of common carrier regulation on ISPs. I have written elsewhere on legal and procedural flaws that may doom the Network Management Order. In summary: (1) the FCC has not been granted explicit authority to regulate the provision of broadband “information services;” (2) the “ancillary jurisdiction” on which the FCC relied was not reasonably related to its other statutorily mandated responsibilities; (3) having failed to adopt enforceable rules concerning broadband network management, the FCC could not lawfully subject Comcast to an “adjudication” concerning its practices; and (4) the Complaint filed against Comcast was defective in several respects and should have been dismissed. The Network Management Order has been appealed by Comcast and several advocacy groups. Comcast challenges the basis on which the FCC found that it had violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable rules. The advocacy groups appealed the FCC’s failure to order Comcast to immediately cease and desist interfering with P2P traffic. The appeals have been consolidated and will be heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that has shown little patience for the FCC’s unusual procedures and the FCC’s use of the doctrine of “ancillary jurisdiction” to expand its reach. Meanwhile, several network operators have announced bandwidth caps or plans to implement them. In addition, there are renewed calls both for the FCC to establish ex ante rules and for legislative action to grant the FCC express regulatory authority over broadband Internet service providers. In short, the legal and policy debate over net neutrality continues. ______________ * Barbara Esbin is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation. My colleague Barbara Esbin, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, was asked to pen a short history of the net neutrality wars in the U.S. for a French publication, La Lettre de l’Autorité.  Her essay provides an excellent, concise overview of where we’ve come from and where we might be heading on this front.  I’ve pasted the entire essay down below, or you can download the PDF here. ________________________ Net Neutrality Regulation in the United States by Barbara Esbin PFF Progress Snapshot Release 4.21 October 2008 The United States moved closer to “Net Neutrality” regulation this year when the Federal Communications Commission found that Comcast, a cable broadband Internet service provider, violated a set of Internet policy principles the FCC adopted in 2005 by limiting peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic. The ruling was the culmination of a ten-year effort that began as a call for wholesale “open access” to the cable platform for third-party Internet service providers. Requests for open access first emerged in 1998 when the FCC considered AT&T’s acquisition of cable operator TCI. The FCC rejected open access, but the issue quickly re-emerged in a subsequent proceeding to determine the appropriate regulatory classification of cable Internet service. Depending on how the FCC categorized cable Internet service, it would either be subject to telecommunications “common carrier” requirements, “cable service” requirements, or treated as a then-unregulated “information service.” In 2002, the FCC classified cable Internet service as an “information service.” This meant that the telecommunications common carrier requirements — that service be provided upon request, without unreasonable discrimination as to rates, terms and conditions of service — would not apply to cable Internet services. The FCC’s decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in NCTA v. Brand X. Afterwards, advocates of open access re-directed their efforts away from advocating wholesale access for third-party ISPs, and towards rules aimed at consumer rights to a “neutral network” or “net neutrality.” In 2005 the FCC extended its deregulatory “information service” approach to wireline broadband Internet services provided, thus freeing telephone companies of traditional common carrier mandates for these services. The FCC’s decisions not to impose cable open access and to relieve telcos of common carrier obligations reflected a policy of fostering infrastructure deployment through market operations. Concurrently, the FCC released a “Policy Statement,” declaring four “entitlements” that Internet service consumers should enjoy: (1) access to lawful content of their choice; (2) ability to run chosen applications and services; (3) ability to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) competition among network, application and content providers. The Policy Statement expressly stated that the FCC was not adopting rules and that the principles are subject to reasonable network management. The FCC subsequently stated that it would entertain complaints concerning violations of the principles, and in early 2007, the FCC opened an “Inquiry” into broadband industry practices, seeking information about network management and asking whether it should impose rules. In late 2007, an advocacy group filed a Complaint alleging that Comcast had violated the FCC’s Policy Statement by “secretly degrading” BitTorrent traffic, thus interfering with the Internet rights of its subscribers, and that its practices did not constitute reasonable network management. Several months later, Comcast and BitTorrent agreed to work together to resolve network congestion issues through the use of protocol-agnostic network management. Yet on Aug. 20, 2008, the FCC released an Order purporting to rule on the Complaint, finding that Comcast had violated the Internet policy principles, and rejecting its defense that its practices were reasonable. The FCC ruled that Comcast’s network management practices: discriminated among Internet applications and protocols rather than treating all equally; effectively blocked Internet traffic; posed significant risks of anti-competitive abuse; were inconsistent with “an open and accessible Internet;” and that Comcast’s failure to disclose its practices compounded the harms. Alternative means of managing network congestion approved by the FCC include metered usage and throttling the connection speeds of excessive users. This action was said to be an “adjudication,” although traditional agency complaint rules were not followed. Comcast was given 30 days to disclose to the FCC “the precise contours” of its network management practices and describe what it will do instead to address network congestion. The effect of the Order is to establish a fifth “non-discrimination” Internet policy principle, to be implemented by the FCC through case-by-case adjudication of individual complaints rather than ex ante rules. Thus, 10 years later, and without explicit acknowledgment, the FCC has effectively abandoned its “hands off” approach and imposed a form of common carrier regulation on ISPs. I have written elsewhere on legal and procedural flaws that may doom the Network Management Order. In summary: (1) the FCC has not been granted explicit authority to regulate the provision of broadband “information services;” (2) the “ancillary jurisdiction” on which the FCC relied was not reasonably related to its other statutorily mandated responsibilities; (3) having failed to adopt enforceable rules concerning broadband network management, the FCC could not lawfully subject Comcast to an “adjudication” concerning its practices; and (4) the Complaint filed against Comcast was defective in several respects and should have been dismissed. The Network Management Order has been appealed by Comcast and several advocacy groups. Comcast challenges the basis on which the FCC found that it had violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable rules. The advocacy groups appealed the FCC’s failure to order Comcast to immediately cease and desist interfering with P2P traffic. The appeals have been consolidated and will be heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that has shown little patience for the FCC’s unusual procedures and the FCC’s use of the doctrine of “ancillary jurisdiction” to expand its reach. Meanwhile, several network operators have announced bandwidth caps or plans to implement them. In addition, there are renewed calls both for the FCC to establish ex ante rules and for legislative action to grant the FCC express regulatory authority over broadband Internet service providers. In short, the legal and policy debate over net neutrality continues. ______________ * Barbara Esbin is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation. tag:odeo.com,2008-10-08,23469457 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:51:02 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Broadband, BitTorrent, History, telecom, comcast, fcc, cable, net neutrality, regulation, neutrality, Brand X, Network Management Order, Broadband and Neutrality Regulation, barbara esbin, ancillary jurisdiction, "Federal Communications Commission' http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23519942-Esbin%E2%80%99s-Early-History-of-the-Net-Neutrality-Debate-in-U-S My colleague Barbara Esbin, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, was asked to pen a short history of the net neutrality wars in the U.S. for a French publication, La Lettre de l’Autorité.  Her essay provides an excellent, concise overview of where we’ve come from and where we might be heading on this front.  I’ve pasted the entire essay down below, or you can download the PDF here. ________________________ Net Neutrality Regulation in the United States by Barbara Esbin PFF Progress Snapshot Release 4.21 October 2008 The United States moved closer to “Net Neutrality” regulation this year when the Federal Communications Commission found that Comcast, a cable broadband Internet service provider, violated a set of Internet policy principles the FCC adopted in 2005 by limiting peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic. The ruling was the culmination of a ten-year effort that began as a call for wholesale “open acc... My colleague Barbara Esbin, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, was asked to pen a short history of the net neutrality wars in the U.S. for a French publication, La Lettre de l’Autorité.  Her essay provides an excellent, concise overview of where we’ve come from and where we might be heading on this front.  I’ve pasted the entire essay down below, or you can download the PDF here. ________________________ Net Neutrality Regulation in the United States by Barbara Esbin PFF Progress Snapshot Release 4.21 October 2008 The United States moved closer to “Net Neutrality” regulation this year when the Federal Communications Commission found that Comcast, a cable broadband Internet service provider, violated a set of Internet policy principles the FCC adopted in 2005 by limiting peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic. The ruling was the culmination of a ten-year effort that began as a call for wholesale “open access” to the cable platform for third-party Internet service providers. Requests for open access first emerged in 1998 when the FCC considered AT&T’s acquisition of cable operator TCI. The FCC rejected open access, but the issue quickly re-emerged in a subsequent proceeding to determine the appropriate regulatory classification of cable Internet service. Depending on how the FCC categorized cable Internet service, it would either be subject to telecommunications “common carrier” requirements, “cable service” requirements, or treated as a then-unregulated “information service.” In 2002, the FCC classified cable Internet service as an “information service.” This meant that the telecommunications common carrier requirements — that service be provided upon request, without unreasonable discrimination as to rates, terms and conditions of service — would not apply to cable Internet services. The FCC’s decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in NCTA v. Brand X. Afterwards, advocates of open access re-directed their efforts away from advocating wholesale access for third-party ISPs, and towards rules aimed at consumer rights to a “neutral network” or “net neutrality.” In 2005 the FCC extended its deregulatory “information service” approach to wireline broadband Internet services provided, thus freeing telephone companies of traditional common carrier mandates for these services. The FCC’s decisions not to impose cable open access and to relieve telcos of common carrier obligations reflected a policy of fostering infrastructure deployment through market operations. Concurrently, the FCC released a “Policy Statement,” declaring four “entitlements” that Internet service consumers should enjoy: (1) access to lawful content of their choice; (2) ability to run chosen applications and services; (3) ability to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) competition among network, application and content providers. The Policy Statement expressly stated that the FCC was not adopting rules and that the principles are subject to reasonable network management. The FCC subsequently stated that it would entertain complaints concerning violations of the principles, and in early 2007, the FCC opened an “Inquiry” into broadband industry practices, seeking information about network management and asking whether it should impose rules. In late 2007, an advocacy group filed a Complaint alleging that Comcast had violated the FCC’s Policy Statement by “secretly degrading” BitTorrent traffic, thus interfering with the Internet rights of its subscribers, and that its practices did not constitute reasonable network management. Several months later, Comcast and BitTorrent agreed to work together to resolve network congestion issues through the use of protocol-agnostic network management. Yet on Aug. 20, 2008, the FCC released an Order purporting to rule on the Complaint, finding that Comcast had violated the Internet policy principles, and rejecting its defense that its practices were reasonable. The FCC ruled that Comcast’s network management practices: discriminated among Internet applications and protocols rather than treating all equally; effectively blocked Internet traffic; posed significant risks of anti-competitive abuse; were inconsistent with “an open and accessible Internet;” and that Comcast’s failure to disclose its practices compounded the harms. Alternative means of managing network congestion approved by the FCC include metered usage and throttling the connection speeds of excessive users. This action was said to be an “adjudication,” although traditional agency complaint rules were not followed. Comcast was given 30 days to disclose to the FCC “the precise contours” of its network management practices and describe what it will do instead to address network congestion. The effect of the Order is to establish a fifth “non-discrimination” Internet policy principle, to be implemented by the FCC through case-by-case adjudication of individual complaints rather than ex ante rules. Thus, 10 years later, and without explicit acknowledgment, the FCC has effectively abandoned its “hands off” approach and imposed a form of common carrier regulation on ISPs. I have written elsewhere on legal and procedural flaws that may doom the Network Management Order. In summary: (1) the FCC has not been granted explicit authority to regulate the provision of broadband “information services;” (2) the “ancillary jurisdiction” on which the FCC relied was not reasonably related to its other statutorily mandated responsibilities; (3) having failed to adopt enforceable rules concerning broadband network management, the FCC could not lawfully subject Comcast to an “adjudication” concerning its practices; and (4) the Complaint filed against Comcast was defective in several respects and should have been dismissed. The Network Management Order has been appealed by Comcast and several advocacy groups. Comcast challenges the basis on which the FCC found that it had violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable rules. The advocacy groups appealed the FCC’s failure to order Comcast to immediately cease and desist interfering with P2P traffic. The appeals have been consolidated and will be heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that has shown little patience for the FCC’s unusual procedures and the FCC’s use of the doctrine of “ancillary jurisdiction” to expand its reach. Meanwhile, several network operators have announced bandwidth caps or plans to implement them. In addition, there are renewed calls both for the FCC to establish ex ante rules and for legislative action to grant the FCC express regulatory authority over broadband Internet service providers. In short, the legal and policy debate over net neutrality continues. ______________ * Barbara Esbin is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation. My colleague Barbara Esbin, a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation, was asked to pen a short history of the net neutrality wars in the U.S. for a French publication, La Lettre de l’Autorité.  Her essay provides an excellent, concise overview of where we’ve come from and where we might be heading on this front.  I’ve pasted the entire essay down below, or you can download the PDF here. ________________________ Net Neutrality Regulation in the United States by Barbara Esbin PFF Progress Snapshot Release 4.21 October 2008 The United States moved closer to “Net Neutrality” regulation this year when the Federal Communications Commission found that Comcast, a cable broadband Internet service provider, violated a set of Internet policy principles the FCC adopted in 2005 by limiting peer-to-peer (P2P) traffic. The ruling was the culmination of a ten-year effort that began as a call for wholesale “open access” to the cable platform for third-party Internet service providers. Requests for open access first emerged in 1998 when the FCC considered AT&T’s acquisition of cable operator TCI. The FCC rejected open access, but the issue quickly re-emerged in a subsequent proceeding to determine the appropriate regulatory classification of cable Internet service. Depending on how the FCC categorized cable Internet service, it would either be subject to telecommunications “common carrier” requirements, “cable service” requirements, or treated as a then-unregulated “information service.” In 2002, the FCC classified cable Internet service as an “information service.” This meant that the telecommunications common carrier requirements — that service be provided upon request, without unreasonable discrimination as to rates, terms and conditions of service — would not apply to cable Internet services. The FCC’s decision was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in NCTA v. Brand X. Afterwards, advocates of open access re-directed their efforts away from advocating wholesale access for third-party ISPs, and towards rules aimed at consumer rights to a “neutral network” or “net neutrality.” In 2005 the FCC extended its deregulatory “information service” approach to wireline broadband Internet services provided, thus freeing telephone companies of traditional common carrier mandates for these services. The FCC’s decisions not to impose cable open access and to relieve telcos of common carrier obligations reflected a policy of fostering infrastructure deployment through market operations. Concurrently, the FCC released a “Policy Statement,” declaring four “entitlements” that Internet service consumers should enjoy: (1) access to lawful content of their choice; (2) ability to run chosen applications and services; (3) ability to connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network; and (4) competition among network, application and content providers. The Policy Statement expressly stated that the FCC was not adopting rules and that the principles are subject to reasonable network management. The FCC subsequently stated that it would entertain complaints concerning violations of the principles, and in early 2007, the FCC opened an “Inquiry” into broadband industry practices, seeking information about network management and asking whether it should impose rules. In late 2007, an advocacy group filed a Complaint alleging that Comcast had violated the FCC’s Policy Statement by “secretly degrading” BitTorrent traffic, thus interfering with the Internet rights of its subscribers, and that its practices did not constitute reasonable network management. Several months later, Comcast and BitTorrent agreed to work together to resolve network congestion issues through the use of protocol-agnostic network management. Yet on Aug. 20, 2008, the FCC released an Order purporting to rule on the Complaint, finding that Comcast had violated the Internet policy principles, and rejecting its defense that its practices were reasonable. The FCC ruled that Comcast’s network management practices: discriminated among Internet applications and protocols rather than treating all equally; effectively blocked Internet traffic; posed significant risks of anti-competitive abuse; were inconsistent with “an open and accessible Internet;” and that Comcast’s failure to disclose its practices compounded the harms. Alternative means of managing network congestion approved by the FCC include metered usage and throttling the connection speeds of excessive users. This action was said to be an “adjudication,” although traditional agency complaint rules were not followed. Comcast was given 30 days to disclose to the FCC “the precise contours” of its network management practices and describe what it will do instead to address network congestion. The effect of the Order is to establish a fifth “non-discrimination” Internet policy principle, to be implemented by the FCC through case-by-case adjudication of individual complaints rather than ex ante rules. Thus, 10 years later, and without explicit acknowledgment, the FCC has effectively abandoned its “hands off” approach and imposed a form of common carrier regulation on ISPs. I have written elsewhere on legal and procedural flaws that may doom the Network Management Order. In summary: (1) the FCC has not been granted explicit authority to regulate the provision of broadband “information services;” (2) the “ancillary jurisdiction” on which the FCC relied was not reasonably related to its other statutorily mandated responsibilities; (3) having failed to adopt enforceable rules concerning broadband network management, the FCC could not lawfully subject Comcast to an “adjudication” concerning its practices; and (4) the Complaint filed against Comcast was defective in several respects and should have been dismissed. The Network Management Order has been appealed by Comcast and several advocacy groups. Comcast challenges the basis on which the FCC found that it had violated federal policy in the absence of pre-existing legally enforceable rules. The advocacy groups appealed the FCC’s failure to order Comcast to immediately cease and desist interfering with P2P traffic. The appeals have been consolidated and will be heard by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, a court that has shown little patience for the FCC’s unusual procedures and the FCC’s use of the doctrine of “ancillary jurisdiction” to expand its reach. Meanwhile, several network operators have announced bandwidth caps or plans to implement them. In addition, there are renewed calls both for the FCC to establish ex ante rules and for legislative action to grant the FCC express regulatory authority over broadband Internet service providers. In short, the legal and policy debate over net neutrality continues. ______________ * Barbara Esbin is a Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Communications and Competition Policy at The Progress & Freedom Foundation. tag:odeo.com,2008-10-08,23519942 Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:51:02 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Broadband, BitTorrent, History, telecom, comcast, fcc, cable, net neutrality, regulation, neutrality, Brand X, Network Management Order, Broadband and Neutrality Regulation, barbara esbin, ancillary jurisdiction, "Federal Communications Commission' http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23454295-Supremes-Mull-Whether-Bad-Databases-Make-for-Illegal-Searches If a false entry in a database leads to a unconstitutional police search that reveals illegal drugs, does the government get to hold it against you? That's the question the Supreme Court will tackle on Tuesday in a case civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center argue will have broad implications  in a world where we are constantly being evaluated against databases and watch lists that are riddled with frustratingly persistent errors. "In these interlinked databases, one error can spread like a disease, infecting every system it touches and condemning the individual to whom this error refers to suffer substantial delay, harassment, and improper arrest," EPIC director Marc Rotenberg argued in a friend of the court brief (.pdf). Not surprisingly, the government disagrees. "Police officers in the field must be allowed to rely on information they receive from others when it is reasonable to do so," the Justice Department wrote in its... If a false entry in a database leads to a unconstitutional police search that reveals illegal drugs, does the government get to hold it against you? That's the question the Supreme Court will tackle on Tuesday in a case civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center argue will have broad implications  in a world where we are constantly being evaluated against databases and watch lists that are riddled with frustratingly persistent errors. "In these interlinked databases, one error can spread like a disease, infecting every system it touches and condemning the individual to whom this error refers to suffer substantial delay, harassment, and improper arrest," EPIC director Marc Rotenberg argued in a friend of the court brief (.pdf). Not surprisingly, the government disagrees. "Police officers in the field must be allowed to rely on information they receive from others when it is reasonable to do so," the Justice Department wrote in its brief (.pdf), arguing that throwing out the evidence won't make errors less likely. At issue is the case of Bennie Herring, an Alabama man who drove to the police station in July 2004 to try to retrieve items from an impounded pickup truck. A Coffee County cop recognized him, asked the clerk to check the database for outstanding warrant. None was found, so the investigator asked the clerk to call the neighboring Dale county clerk to see if it had a warrant for Herring. The Dale county clerk found a warrant for Herring in their database, so the Coffee County cops set out after Herring after asking the other county to fax the warrant over.  Herring was soon pulled over and the police found meth in his pocket and a pistol under the truck's seat. But in the meantime, the Dale county clerk found that there was no warrant for Herring and the entry should have been removed five months previous. In court, Herring moved to have the evidence thrown out, but instead was sentenced to 27 months for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. No one – not even the government - disputes that the search was unconstitutional. But the courts – including the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – aren't convinced that throwing out evidence from a tainted-database-initiated search will make the system better. "Hoping to gain a beneficial deterrent effect on Dale County personnel by excluding evidence in a case brought by Coffee County officers would be like telling a student that if he skips school one of his classmates will be punished," Judge Edward Carnes wrote in a 2007 opinion.  "The student may not exactly relish the prospect of causing another to suffer, but human nature being what it is, he is unlikely to fear that prospect as much as he would his own suffering. " Instead Carnes suggests victims of bad government databases should find their justice by filing a civil suit against the responsible parties. Civil liberties groups say such suits are unlikely to succeed and that the Constitution should protect people from watch lists and databases relied on more and more by the government, even as it  denies responsibility for keeping them accurate. The case is Herring vs. US 07-513. Photo: dbking/Flickr If a false entry in a database leads to a unconstitutional police search that reveals illegal drugs, does the government get to hold it against you? That's the question the Supreme Court will tackle on Tuesday in a case civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center argue will have broad implications  in a world where we are constantly being evaluated against databases and watch lists that are riddled with frustratingly persistent errors. "In these interlinked databases, one error can spread like a disease, infecting every system it touches and condemning the individual to whom this error refers to suffer substantial delay, harassment, and improper arrest," EPIC director Marc Rotenberg argued in a friend of the court brief (.pdf). Not surprisingly, the government disagrees. "Police officers in the field must be allowed to rely on information they receive from others when it is reasonable to do so," the Justice Department wrote in its brief (.pdf), arguing that throwing out the evidence won't make errors less likely. At issue is the case of Bennie Herring, an Alabama man who drove to the police station in July 2004 to try to retrieve items from an impounded pickup truck. A Coffee County cop recognized him, asked the clerk to check the database for outstanding warrant. None was found, so the investigator asked the clerk to call the neighboring Dale county clerk to see if it had a warrant for Herring. The Dale county clerk found a warrant for Herring in their database, so the Coffee County cops set out after Herring after asking the other county to fax the warrant over.  Herring was soon pulled over and the police found meth in his pocket and a pistol under the truck's seat. But in the meantime, the Dale county clerk found that there was no warrant for Herring and the entry should have been removed five months previous. In court, Herring moved to have the evidence thrown out, but instead was sentenced to 27 months for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. No one – not even the government - disputes that the search was unconstitutional. But the courts – including the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – aren't convinced that throwing out evidence from a tainted-database-initiated search will make the system better. "Hoping to gain a beneficial deterrent effect on Dale County personnel by excluding evidence in a case brought by Coffee County officers would be like telling a student that if he skips school one of his classmates will be punished," Judge Edward Carnes wrote in a 2007 opinion.  "The student may not exactly relish the prospect of causing another to suffer, but human nature being what it is, he is unlikely to fear that prospect as much as he would his own suffering. " Instead Carnes suggests victims of bad government databases should find their justice by filing a civil suit against the responsible parties. Civil liberties groups say such suits are unlikely to succeed and that the Constitution should protect people from watch lists and databases relied on more and more by the government, even as it  denies responsibility for keeping them accurate. The case is Herring vs. US 07-513. Photo: dbking/Flickr tag:odeo.com,2008-10-04,23454295 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:28:46 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader privacy http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23519943-Supremes-Mull-Whether-Bad-Databases-Make-for-Illegal-Searches If a false entry in a database leads to a unconstitutional police search that reveals illegal drugs, does the government get to hold it against you? That's the question the Supreme Court will tackle on Tuesday in a case civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center argue will have broad implications  in a world where we are constantly being evaluated against databases and watch lists that are riddled with frustratingly persistent errors. "In these interlinked databases, one error can spread like a disease, infecting every system it touches and condemning the individual to whom this error refers to suffer substantial delay, harassment, and improper arrest," EPIC director Marc Rotenberg argued in a friend of the court brief (.pdf). Not surprisingly, the government disagrees. "Police officers in the field must be allowed to rely on information they receive from others when it is reasonable to do so," the Justice Department wrote in its... If a false entry in a database leads to a unconstitutional police search that reveals illegal drugs, does the government get to hold it against you? That's the question the Supreme Court will tackle on Tuesday in a case civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center argue will have broad implications  in a world where we are constantly being evaluated against databases and watch lists that are riddled with frustratingly persistent errors. "In these interlinked databases, one error can spread like a disease, infecting every system it touches and condemning the individual to whom this error refers to suffer substantial delay, harassment, and improper arrest," EPIC director Marc Rotenberg argued in a friend of the court brief (.pdf). Not surprisingly, the government disagrees. "Police officers in the field must be allowed to rely on information they receive from others when it is reasonable to do so," the Justice Department wrote in its brief (.pdf), arguing that throwing out the evidence won't make errors less likely. At issue is the case of Bennie Herring, an Alabama man who drove to the police station in July 2004 to try to retrieve items from an impounded pickup truck. A Coffee County cop recognized him, asked the clerk to check the database for outstanding warrant. None was found, so the investigator asked the clerk to call the neighboring Dale county clerk to see if it had a warrant for Herring. The Dale county clerk found a warrant for Herring in their database, so the Coffee County cops set out after Herring after asking the other county to fax the warrant over.  Herring was soon pulled over and the police found meth in his pocket and a pistol under the truck's seat. But in the meantime, the Dale county clerk found that there was no warrant for Herring and the entry should have been removed five months previous. In court, Herring moved to have the evidence thrown out, but instead was sentenced to 27 months for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. No one – not even the government - disputes that the search was unconstitutional. But the courts – including the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – aren't convinced that throwing out evidence from a tainted-database-initiated search will make the system better. "Hoping to gain a beneficial deterrent effect on Dale County personnel by excluding evidence in a case brought by Coffee County officers would be like telling a student that if he skips school one of his classmates will be punished," Judge Edward Carnes wrote in a 2007 opinion.  "The student may not exactly relish the prospect of causing another to suffer, but human nature being what it is, he is unlikely to fear that prospect as much as he would his own suffering. " Instead Carnes suggests victims of bad government databases should find their justice by filing a civil suit against the responsible parties. Civil liberties groups say such suits are unlikely to succeed and that the Constitution should protect people from watch lists and databases relied on more and more by the government, even as it  denies responsibility for keeping them accurate. The case is Herring vs. US 07-513. Photo: dbking/Flickr If a false entry in a database leads to a unconstitutional police search that reveals illegal drugs, does the government get to hold it against you? That's the question the Supreme Court will tackle on Tuesday in a case civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Privacy Information Center argue will have broad implications  in a world where we are constantly being evaluated against databases and watch lists that are riddled with frustratingly persistent errors. "In these interlinked databases, one error can spread like a disease, infecting every system it touches and condemning the individual to whom this error refers to suffer substantial delay, harassment, and improper arrest," EPIC director Marc Rotenberg argued in a friend of the court brief (.pdf). Not surprisingly, the government disagrees. "Police officers in the field must be allowed to rely on information they receive from others when it is reasonable to do so," the Justice Department wrote in its brief (.pdf), arguing that throwing out the evidence won't make errors less likely. At issue is the case of Bennie Herring, an Alabama man who drove to the police station in July 2004 to try to retrieve items from an impounded pickup truck. A Coffee County cop recognized him, asked the clerk to check the database for outstanding warrant. None was found, so the investigator asked the clerk to call the neighboring Dale county clerk to see if it had a warrant for Herring. The Dale county clerk found a warrant for Herring in their database, so the Coffee County cops set out after Herring after asking the other county to fax the warrant over.  Herring was soon pulled over and the police found meth in his pocket and a pistol under the truck's seat. But in the meantime, the Dale county clerk found that there was no warrant for Herring and the entry should have been removed five months previous. In court, Herring moved to have the evidence thrown out, but instead was sentenced to 27 months for being a convicted felon in possession of a firearm. No one – not even the government - disputes that the search was unconstitutional. But the courts – including the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals – aren't convinced that throwing out evidence from a tainted-database-initiated search will make the system better. "Hoping to gain a beneficial deterrent effect on Dale County personnel by excluding evidence in a case brought by Coffee County officers would be like telling a student that if he skips school one of his classmates will be punished," Judge Edward Carnes wrote in a 2007 opinion.  "The student may not exactly relish the prospect of causing another to suffer, but human nature being what it is, he is unlikely to fear that prospect as much as he would his own suffering. " Instead Carnes suggests victims of bad government databases should find their justice by filing a civil suit against the responsible parties. Civil liberties groups say such suits are unlikely to succeed and that the Constitution should protect people from watch lists and databases relied on more and more by the government, even as it  denies responsibility for keeping them accurate. The case is Herring vs. US 07-513. Photo: dbking/Flickr tag:odeo.com,2008-10-04,23519943 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 14:28:46 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader privacy http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23449359-Fed-Blotter-New-Charges-Filed-Against-Alleged-Cyber-Peeping-Tom Federal prosecutors are going after a Florida college student who allegedly installed spyware on a woman's laptop to covertly snap nude photos of her through her webcam. Craig Matthew Feigin Craig Matthew Feigin, 23, is charged (.pdf) in U.S. District Court in Gainesville with violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Feigin was arrested by local police last July. The case began when the victim noticed changes in her computer's behavior after giving it to Feigin for overnight repairs, the Gainesville Sun reported at the time. Every time she got near her laptop,  the light on her webcam switched on. A friend with IT experience examined the system, and found that someone had installed the remote access program Log Me In, and software called Web Cam Spy Hacker, which Feigin himself sold online as a tool for catching cheating spouses. Over three weeks, the software allegedly uploaded some 20,000 images of the woman to an Eastern European web server before it was detected. Feig... Federal prosecutors are going after a Florida college student who allegedly installed spyware on a woman's laptop to covertly snap nude photos of her through her webcam. Craig Matthew Feigin Craig Matthew Feigin, 23, is charged (.pdf) in U.S. District Court in Gainesville with violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Feigin was arrested by local police last July. The case began when the victim noticed changes in her computer's behavior after giving it to Feigin for overnight repairs, the Gainesville Sun reported at the time. Every time she got near her laptop,  the light on her webcam switched on. A friend with IT experience examined the system, and found that someone had installed the remote access program Log Me In, and software called Web Cam Spy Hacker, which Feigin himself sold online as a tool for catching cheating spouses. Over three weeks, the software allegedly uploaded some 20,000 images of the woman to an Eastern European web server before it was detected. Feigin reportedly told police he'd pulled the same scam on eight or nine other women. A federal magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Feigin on September 23. Two Pennsylvania men are in trouble this week for electronic snooping of a different sort. Artur Grigoryan and Artur Hurutyunyan allegedly persuaded an associate to take a job as a clerk at the local Rite Aid in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Once there, she installed a skimming device inside the debit card pad at the cash register, which began scooping up ATM card numbers and PINs from drug store customers. A Flying J in Lordsburg, New Mexico Courtesy Texas Hillsurfer From January to April of last year, the two men periodically returned to the store and distracted other cashiers while downloading the captured information from the wiretapped PIN pad, according to a five-count federal information (.pdf) filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. They allegedly programmed the captured magstripe data onto other cards and used the PINs to withdraw some $351,050 from Rite Aid shoppers with accounts at Citizens Bank, PNC Bank and Wachovia. A Texas trucker struggling with the high price of diesel fuel is accused in a similar scam, after MasterCard customer Amanda Anderson noticed mysterious charges to her card from the Flying J truck stop chain. The FBI traced the charges (.pdf) to truck driver Armenak Abulyan by way of his "Frequent Fueler" card, which offers discounts and incentives to Flying J customers. Abulyan was apparently a particularly faithful customer, who swiped his loyalty card at Flying J pumps from Knoxville to Nebraska, while using Anderson's credit card number, and at least seven others, to gulp down $20,000 in gas from May to September 2008. Anderson told the FBI the charges began after she used her card at a convenience store. The clerks there told her that the store's card reader was broken, then briefly took her MasterCard into another room to use "the back unit." Jay Echouafni Perhaps bolstered by its success in extradition proceedings against British UFO hacker Gary McKinnon, the feds this week reopened and Europeanized a 2004 case involving a satellite TV entrepreneur who allegedly shelled out cold, hard cash to have three competitors DDoSed off the web. Jay Echouafni , 41, allegedly paid an employee to organize crippling distributed denial-of-service attacks against competing websites selling satellite TV gear in 2003. The employee, Paul Ashley, pleaded guilty to the attacks and has already served a two-year prison term, while Echouafni skipped out on $750,000 bail and is now believed to be hiding out in Morocco, where he was born. Alleged botmaster Lee Graham Walker, of the United Kingdom, was charged alongside Echouafni in the original federal complaint in 2004. On Thursday federal prosecutors in Los Angeles turned that into a formal indictment (.pdf), perhaps clearing the way for extradition proceedings. At the same time, the feds added German hacker Axel Gambe to the case. Gambe last came up as the prime suspect in the Half Life 2 source code theft. He's named in the new indictment as the purported creator of the Agobot malware used in some of the attacks. Charges filed in 2004 against three other men in the case were later dropped. Fed Blotter is Threat Level's new weekly roundup of computer crime cases in the federal courts. If you've been indicted, or are about to be, please let us know. Federal prosecutors are going after a Florida college student who allegedly installed spyware on a woman's laptop to covertly snap nude photos of her through her webcam. Craig Matthew Feigin Craig Matthew Feigin, 23, is charged (.pdf) in U.S. District Court in Gainesville with violating the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Feigin was arrested by local police last July. The case began when the victim noticed changes in her computer's behavior after giving it to Feigin for overnight repairs, the Gainesville Sun reported at the time. Every time she got near her laptop,  the light on her webcam switched on. A friend with IT experience examined the system, and found that someone had installed the remote access program Log Me In, and software called Web Cam Spy Hacker, which Feigin himself sold online as a tool for catching cheating spouses. Over three weeks, the software allegedly uploaded some 20,000 images of the woman to an Eastern European web server before it was detected. Feigin reportedly told police he'd pulled the same scam on eight or nine other women. A federal magistrate issued an arrest warrant for Feigin on September 23. Two Pennsylvania men are in trouble this week for electronic snooping of a different sort. Artur Grigoryan and Artur Hurutyunyan allegedly persuaded an associate to take a job as a clerk at the local Rite Aid in Wayne, Pennsylvania. Once there, she installed a skimming device inside the debit card pad at the cash register, which began scooping up ATM card numbers and PINs from drug store customers. A Flying J in Lordsburg, New Mexico Courtesy Texas Hillsurfer From January to April of last year, the two men periodically returned to the store and distracted other cashiers while downloading the captured information from the wiretapped PIN pad, according to a five-count federal information (.pdf) filed Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. They allegedly programmed the captured magstripe data onto other cards and used the PINs to withdraw some $351,050 from Rite Aid shoppers with accounts at Citizens Bank, PNC Bank and Wachovia. A Texas trucker struggling with the high price of diesel fuel is accused in a similar scam, after MasterCard customer Amanda Anderson noticed mysterious charges to her card from the Flying J truck stop chain. The FBI traced the charges (.pdf) to truck driver Armenak Abulyan by way of his "Frequent Fueler" card, which offers discounts and incentives to Flying J customers. Abulyan was apparently a particularly faithful customer, who swiped his loyalty card at Flying J pumps from Knoxville to Nebraska, while using Anderson's credit card number, and at least seven others, to gulp down $20,000 in gas from May to September 2008. Anderson told the FBI the charges began after she used her card at a convenience store. The clerks there told her that the store's card reader was broken, then briefly took her MasterCard into another room to use "the back unit." Jay Echouafni Perhaps bolstered by its success in extradition proceedings against British UFO hacker Gary McKinnon, the feds this week reopened and Europeanized a 2004 case involving a satellite TV entrepreneur who allegedly shelled out cold, hard cash to have three competitors DDoSed off the web. Jay Echouafni , 41, allegedly paid an employee to organize crippling distributed denial-of-service attacks against competing websites selling satellite TV gear in 2003. The employee, Paul Ashley, pleaded guilty to the attacks and has already served a two-year prison term, while Echouafni skipped out on $750,000 bail and is now believed to be hiding out in Morocco, where he was born. Alleged botmaster Lee Graham Walker, of the United Kingdom, was charged alongside Echouafni in the original federal complaint in 2004. On Thursday federal prosecutors in Los Angeles turned that into a formal indictment (.pdf), perhaps clearing the way for extradition proceedings. At the same time, the feds added German hacker Axel Gambe to the case. Gambe last came up as the prime suspect in the Half Life 2 source code theft. He's named in the new indictment as the purported creator of the Agobot malware used in some of the attacks. Charges filed in 2004 against three other men in the case were later dropped. Fed Blotter is Threat Level's new weekly roundup of computer crime cases in the federal courts. If you've been indicted, or are about to be, please let us know. tag:odeo.com,2008-10-03,23449359 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:24:33 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader crime, Fed Blotter http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23449358-Fiction-or-Fiction-750-000-American-Jobs-Lost-to-IP-Piracy Declaring that 750,000 Americans are out of work because of intellectual property piracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging President Bush to sign legislation creating a cabinet-level copyright czar to oversee expanded IP enforcement efforts. Those are eye-popping numbers, equaling 8 percent of the official number of 9.4 million unemployed Americans. But the origin of that 750,000 number -- which was included Thursday in a Chamber of Commerce lobbying letter (.pdf) to the president -- is a mystery. A spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce said Friday that the nation's largest business lobbying group obtained the figure from "several federal government departments and agencies," including the U.S. Department of Commerce.  In an e-mail, chamber spokesman Alex Burgos provided a link to a Sept. 21, 2005 statement from then-Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez citing the 750,000 figure. The U.S. Department of Commerce, however, said Friday that it obtained the number fro... Declaring that 750,000 Americans are out of work because of intellectual property piracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging President Bush to sign legislation creating a cabinet-level copyright czar to oversee expanded IP enforcement efforts. Those are eye-popping numbers, equaling 8 percent of the official number of 9.4 million unemployed Americans. But the origin of that 750,000 number -- which was included Thursday in a Chamber of Commerce lobbying letter (.pdf) to the president -- is a mystery. A spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce said Friday that the nation's largest business lobbying group obtained the figure from "several federal government departments and agencies," including the U.S. Department of Commerce.  In an e-mail, chamber spokesman Alex Burgos provided a link to a Sept. 21, 2005 statement from then-Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez citing the 750,000 figure. The U.S. Department of Commerce, however, said Friday that it obtained the number from the Chamber of Commerce. "That information was provided by the Chamber of Commerce," Emily Lawrimore, a U.S. Department of Commerce spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview. "That's where we received the information from." The 750,000 figure is repeated on the Chamber of Commerce's  website section on intellectual property, but cites the office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the source. And then there's the same number again appearing on a 2007 joint U.S. Department of Commerce-U.S. Chamber of Commerce press release. A link on the press release goes to the Commerce Department's trademark division dealing with small business. Atop the website is this flash message we captured with a screenshot: Declaring that 750,000 Americans are out of work because of intellectual property piracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging President Bush to sign legislation creating a cabinet-level copyright czar to oversee expanded IP enforcement efforts. Those are eye-popping numbers, equaling 8 percent of the official number of 9.4 million unemployed Americans. But the origin of that 750,000 number -- which was included Thursday in a Chamber of Commerce lobbying letter (.pdf) to the president -- is a mystery. A spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce said Friday that the nation's largest business lobbying group obtained the figure from "several federal government departments and agencies," including the U.S. Department of Commerce.  In an e-mail, chamber spokesman Alex Burgos provided a link to a Sept. 21, 2005 statement from then-Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez citing the 750,000 figure. The U.S. Department of Commerce, however, said Friday that it obtained the number from the Chamber of Commerce. "That information was provided by the Chamber of Commerce," Emily Lawrimore, a U.S. Department of Commerce spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview. "That's where we received the information from." The 750,000 figure is repeated on the Chamber of Commerce's  website section on intellectual property, but cites the office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the source. And then there's the same number again appearing on a 2007 joint U.S. Department of Commerce-U.S. Chamber of Commerce press release. A link on the press release goes to the Commerce Department's trademark division dealing with small business. Atop the website is this flash message we captured with a screenshot: tag:odeo.com,2008-10-03,23449358 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:06:00 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader The Ridiculous http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23519944-Fiction-or-Fiction-750-000-American-Jobs-Lost-to-IP-Piracy Declaring that 750,000 Americans are out of work because of intellectual property piracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging President Bush to sign legislation creating a cabinet-level copyright czar to oversee expanded IP enforcement efforts. Those are eye-popping numbers, equaling 8 percent of the official number of 9.4 million unemployed Americans. But the origin of that 750,000 number -- which was included Thursday in a Chamber of Commerce lobbying letter (.pdf) to the president -- is a mystery. A spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce said Friday that the nation's largest business lobbying group obtained the figure from "several federal government departments and agencies," including the U.S. Department of Commerce.  In an e-mail, chamber spokesman Alex Burgos provided a link to a Sept. 21, 2005 statement from then-Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez citing the 750,000 figure. The U.S. Department of Commerce, however, said Friday that it obtained the number fro... Declaring that 750,000 Americans are out of work because of intellectual property piracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging President Bush to sign legislation creating a cabinet-level copyright czar to oversee expanded IP enforcement efforts. Those are eye-popping numbers, equaling 8 percent of the official number of 9.4 million unemployed Americans. But the origin of that 750,000 number -- which was included Thursday in a Chamber of Commerce lobbying letter (.pdf) to the president -- is a mystery. A spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce said Friday that the nation's largest business lobbying group obtained the figure from "several federal government departments and agencies," including the U.S. Department of Commerce.  In an e-mail, chamber spokesman Alex Burgos provided a link to a Sept. 21, 2005 statement from then-Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez citing the 750,000 figure. The U.S. Department of Commerce, however, said Friday that it obtained the number from the Chamber of Commerce. "That information was provided by the Chamber of Commerce," Emily Lawrimore, a U.S. Department of Commerce spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview. "That's where we received the information from." The 750,000 figure is repeated on the Chamber of Commerce's  website section on intellectual property, but cites the office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the source. And then there's the same number again appearing on a 2007 joint U.S. Department of Commerce-U.S. Chamber of Commerce press release. A link on the press release goes to the Commerce Department's trademark division dealing with small business. Atop the website is this flash message we captured with a screenshot: Declaring that 750,000 Americans are out of work because of intellectual property piracy, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is urging President Bush to sign legislation creating a cabinet-level copyright czar to oversee expanded IP enforcement efforts. Those are eye-popping numbers, equaling 8 percent of the official number of 9.4 million unemployed Americans. But the origin of that 750,000 number -- which was included Thursday in a Chamber of Commerce lobbying letter (.pdf) to the president -- is a mystery. A spokesman for the Chamber of Commerce said Friday that the nation's largest business lobbying group obtained the figure from "several federal government departments and agencies," including the U.S. Department of Commerce.  In an e-mail, chamber spokesman Alex Burgos provided a link to a Sept. 21, 2005 statement from then-Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez citing the 750,000 figure. The U.S. Department of Commerce, however, said Friday that it obtained the number from the Chamber of Commerce. "That information was provided by the Chamber of Commerce," Emily Lawrimore, a U.S. Department of Commerce spokeswoman, said in a telephone interview. "That's where we received the information from." The 750,000 figure is repeated on the Chamber of Commerce's  website section on intellectual property, but cites the office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection as the source. And then there's the same number again appearing on a 2007 joint U.S. Department of Commerce-U.S. Chamber of Commerce press release. A link on the press release goes to the Commerce Department's trademark division dealing with small business. Atop the website is this flash message we captured with a screenshot: tag:odeo.com,2008-10-03,23519944 Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:06:00 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader The Ridiculous http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23436280-Right-to-Copy-DVDs-to-PCs-at-Center-of-Copyright-Spat DMCA junkies, start your engines. Once again, the movie industry is going after a new technology it believes violates copyright laws. The majors — including Walt Disney, Warners, News Corp.’s Fox, Universal, Paramount and Sony — are ganging up to sue RealNetworks Inc. over a new software program, called RealDVD, that let’s consumers copy DVDs onto computers. Here are reports from the WSJ and the LAT. The complaint appears to have been filed under seal, but you can find RealNetwork’s opposition to the studios’ motion for a TRO here. “RealNetworks RealDVD should be called StealDVD,” said Greg Goeckner, the general counsel of the Motion Picture Association of America, the main lobbying arm of the movie studios, in a statement. “RealNetworks knows its product violates the law and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing between America’s movie makers and the technology community.” Reps of the individual movie studios declined to comment to the WSJ or couldn’t be reached. News... DMCA junkies, start your engines. Once again, the movie industry is going after a new technology it believes violates copyright laws. The majors — including Walt Disney, Warners, News Corp.’s Fox, Universal, Paramount and Sony — are ganging up to sue RealNetworks Inc. over a new software program, called RealDVD, that let’s consumers copy DVDs onto computers. Here are reports from the WSJ and the LAT. The complaint appears to have been filed under seal, but you can find RealNetwork’s opposition to the studios’ motion for a TRO here. “RealNetworks RealDVD should be called StealDVD,” said Greg Goeckner, the general counsel of the Motion Picture Association of America, the main lobbying arm of the movie studios, in a statement. “RealNetworks knows its product violates the law and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing between America’s movie makers and the technology community.” Reps of the individual movie studios declined to comment to the WSJ or couldn’t be reached. News Corp. owns Dow Jones, publisher of the Law Blog. RealNetworks, which filed its own suit against the studios in federal court in San Francisco, accused the studios of continuing an entertainment-industry pattern of trying to crush technologies that give consumers flexibility in how they enjoy music, video and other media. The Seattle company said it wanted to protect consumers’ “fair-use rights” to make copies of their own purchased DVDs. “Our argument for the studios has been embrace technology — it can help you create new business opportunities,” said Rob Glaser, CEO of RealNetworks. The suit, notes the WSJ, is likely to hinge on whether RealNetworks “circumvents” the copy-protection software in DVDs, a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But according to Stanford law prof Mark Lemley, the spat may ultimately hinge on the language of the license RealNetworks obtained from the DVD Copy Control Association. “If Real has a legitimate license to do this under the contract, the circumvention claim goes away, because they’re not cracking the encryption system,” Lemley told the LAT. “They’ve been given the keys and authorized to do it.” Defending the suit for RealNetworks is a team from Wilson Sonsini that includes James DiBoise, Colleen Bal and Michael Berta. DMCA junkies, start your engines. Once again, the movie industry is going after a new technology it believes violates copyright laws. The majors — including Walt Disney, Warners, News Corp.’s Fox, Universal, Paramount and Sony — are ganging up to sue RealNetworks Inc. over a new software program, called RealDVD, that let’s consumers copy DVDs onto computers. Here are reports from the WSJ and the LAT. The complaint appears to have been filed under seal, but you can find RealNetwork’s opposition to the studios’ motion for a TRO here. “RealNetworks RealDVD should be called StealDVD,” said Greg Goeckner, the general counsel of the Motion Picture Association of America, the main lobbying arm of the movie studios, in a statement. “RealNetworks knows its product violates the law and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing between America’s movie makers and the technology community.” Reps of the individual movie studios declined to comment to the WSJ or couldn’t be reached. News Corp. owns Dow Jones, publisher of the Law Blog. RealNetworks, which filed its own suit against the studios in federal court in San Francisco, accused the studios of continuing an entertainment-industry pattern of trying to crush technologies that give consumers flexibility in how they enjoy music, video and other media. The Seattle company said it wanted to protect consumers’ “fair-use rights” to make copies of their own purchased DVDs. “Our argument for the studios has been embrace technology — it can help you create new business opportunities,” said Rob Glaser, CEO of RealNetworks. The suit, notes the WSJ, is likely to hinge on whether RealNetworks “circumvents” the copy-protection software in DVDs, a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. But according to Stanford law prof Mark Lemley, the spat may ultimately hinge on the language of the license RealNetworks obtained from the DVD Copy Control Association. “If Real has a legitimate license to do this under the contract, the circumvention claim goes away, because they’re not cracking the encryption system,” Lemley told the LAT. “They’ve been given the keys and authorized to do it.” Defending the suit for RealNetworks is a team from Wilson Sonsini that includes James DiBoise, Colleen Bal and Michael Berta. tag:odeo.com,2008-10-01,23436280 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:18:00 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Media, intellectual property http://www.odeo.com/episodes/23275807-Communications-Decency-Act-NJ Donato v. Moldow: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division has held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized the proprietor of an online message board from liability for allegedly defamatory content posted by third-parties, despite the exercise of editorial control in the selection and editing of the messages. Defendant Stephen Moldow established the website, “Eye on Emerson,” in late 1999. He posted information about local government activities and local elected officials. The site included a discussion forum, in which any user could post messages, either with attribution or anonymously. The contents of the discussion board included objectionable and arguably false, defamatory and harassing messages. Plaintiffs then sued Moldow for defamation. This matter is now on appeal from trial court, who dismissed the action, finding that Moldow was immune from liability under a provision in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230, and g... Donato v. Moldow: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division has held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized the proprietor of an online message board from liability for allegedly defamatory content posted by third-parties, despite the exercise of editorial control in the selection and editing of the messages. Defendant Stephen Moldow established the website, “Eye on Emerson,” in late 1999. He posted information about local government activities and local elected officials. The site included a discussion forum, in which any user could post messages, either with attribution or anonymously. The contents of the discussion board included objectionable and arguably false, defamatory and harassing messages. Plaintiffs then sued Moldow for defamation. This matter is now on appeal from trial court, who dismissed the action, finding that Moldow was immune from liability under a provision in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230, and granted Moldow’s motion to dismiss the complaint against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted Section 230 provides that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C.A. § 230(c)(1). The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. see also: Batzel v. Smith; Roskowski v. Corvallis Police Officers’ Association Donato v. Moldow: New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division has held that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act immunized the proprietor of an online message board from liability for allegedly defamatory content posted by third-parties, despite the exercise of editorial control in the selection and editing of the messages. Defendant Stephen Moldow established the website, “Eye on Emerson,” in late 1999. He posted information about local government activities and local elected officials. The site included a discussion forum, in which any user could post messages, either with attribution or anonymously. The contents of the discussion board included objectionable and arguably false, defamatory and harassing messages. Plaintiffs then sued Moldow for defamation. This matter is now on appeal from trial court, who dismissed the action, finding that Moldow was immune from liability under a provision in the Communications Decency Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C.A. § 230, and granted Moldow’s motion to dismiss the complaint against him for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted Section 230 provides that “no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” 47 U.S.C.A. § 230(c)(1). The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to discern. Congress recognized the threat that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning Internet medium. see also: Batzel v. Smith; Roskowski v. Corvallis Police Officers’ Association tag:odeo.com,2008-06-30,23275807 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:22:39 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader Technology, Tech http://www.odeo.com/episodes/17015363-Hey-Ladies tag:odeo.com,2007-08-29,17015363 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:59:58 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/1732422-Paper-MP3-Blogs-Copyright-Infringement tag:odeo.com,2006-08-16,1732422 Wed, 16 Aug 2006 17:34:18 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/1155732-Yeah-Yeah-Yeahs-v-Kelly-Clarkson tag:odeo.com,2006-05-05,1155732 Fri, 05 May 2006 01:12:09 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/949290-DMCA-is-Anti-Competitive tag:odeo.com,2006-03-23,949290 Thu, 23 Mar 2006 12:59:33 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/949289-post-breaches-patents tag:odeo.com,2006-03-20,949289 Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:45:25 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/949288-Google-Wins-Copyright-Battle tag:odeo.com,2006-03-17,949288 Fri, 17 Mar 2006 15:29:08 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/949287-blawg-orgy tag:odeo.com,2006-03-16,949287 Thu, 16 Mar 2006 13:24:48 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/671616-Dead-Kennedys-as-relevant-as-ever tag:odeo.com,2006-02-02,671616 Thu, 02 Feb 2006 20:45:46 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/14534-Google-Yahoo-Face-Click-Fraud-Suit tag:odeo.com,2005-04-07,14534 Thu, 07 Apr 2005 20:14:00 -0700 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/6964-5-Days-til-Grokster tag:odeo.com,2005-03-24,6964 Thu, 24 Mar 2005 07:10:00 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/3121-Lawrence-Lessig-on-Podcasting tag:odeo.com,2005-02-16,3121 Wed, 16 Feb 2005 18:12:00 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/3661-Bag-and-Baggage-Podcast-9 tag:odeo.com,2005-02-14,3661 Mon, 14 Feb 2005 14:00:00 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/2365-The-Legal-Underground-s-Law-Related-Things-That-Suck-for-February-14-2005 tag:odeo.com,2005-02-13,2365 Sun, 13 Feb 2005 10:09:31 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/2366-MCBA-Newsletter-now-online tag:odeo.com,2005-01-28,2366 Fri, 28 Jan 2005 18:53:51 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader http://www.odeo.com/episodes/2367-The-Legal-Underground-Word-of-the-Week-for-January-28-2005 tag:odeo.com,2005-01-28,2367 Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:09:31 -0800 no "techlawadvisor" via Global Records Retention in Google Reader