November 01, 2006
Fantasy Sports Lawsuit Reply Brief
Previously: Fantasy Sports League Lawsuit Filed!
Posted by Kevin Heller at 08:35 PM
September 02, 2006
One Web Day
Posted by Kevin Heller at 10:54 PM
August 15, 2006
DC Cir rules that Bells don't have to unbundle
DC Cir denied Earthlink's petition for review of an order of the FCC agreeing not to require the Bell Operating Companies (BOCs) to provide their competitors with "unbundled" access to certain fiber-based network facilities....
Earthlink, Inc. v. Fed. Communications Comm'n, No. 05-1087 (D.C. Cir. August 15, 2006) [pdf]
Posted by Kevin Heller at 07:04 PM
Should Web Search Data Be Stored?
WSJ Online asked Kevin Bankston (EFF) to debate the issue with Markham Erickson (executive director of NetCoalition, a lobby group for Internet firms including Google and Yahoo) and you can find the discussion here.
Posted by Kevin Heller at 08:16 AM
August 09, 2006
AOL Eternal Hell
Even on the heels of doing something good like offering free AOL, they still f*** it up with a total blunder like releasing billions of search queries that can be used to identify users.
More from the EFF Action Center: "If you are an AOL member, use our Action Center to contact AOL and find out whether you were one of the AOL customers whose search data was publicly disclosed. By voicing your concerns now, you can make sure AOL works to prevent another damaging data leak from happening again.
Posted by Kevin Heller at 02:16 PM
June 21, 2006
Fantasy Sports League Lawsuit Filed!
Complaint filed by Chuck Humphrey alleges that "Internet fantasy sports leagues for violations of the anti-gambling and gambling loss recovery laws of New Jersey".
The entry fee for each of the SportsLine Leagues ranges from $29.95 to $499.95. The potential prize amounts for the winner of each twelve-team league range from $150 to $3,600. This results in a gross profit to the CBS defendants of approximately as little as $200 to as much as $2,400 per twelve-team group, or from 40-60% of the total amounts wagered by participants in the SportsLine Leagues. Such profit constitutes a winner’s share of the bets made by the players in these fantasy sports leagues.
Trackback: Deadspin: Ixnay On The Ambling-Gay! / TortsProf Blog: Slightly Off Topic Sports Fun / Overlawyered: Fantasy sports leagues? Shut 'em down
Posted by Kevin Heller at 11:22 PM
June 02, 2006
2 years of data for terrorism
"Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has said that requiring Internet service providers to save records of their customers' online activities is necessary in the fight against terrorism..." Terrorism invoked in ISP snooping proposal
I wonder how many search results they will come across for "pentagon missile 911".
Related: DOJ says "File Sharing equal threat as terrorism and drugs."
Posted by Kevin Heller at 08:42 AM
May 25, 2006
Net Neutrality Bill Passes House Judiciary
PK: "The House Judiciary Committee this afternoon voted 20-13 to approve legislation (HR 5417) that would allow preserve Net Neutrality through antitrust lawsuits against telephone and cable companies."
You can read here.
Posted by Kevin Heller at 02:38 PM
May 15, 2006
DOJ renders opinion on Google v. MSN
DOJ tells Google that IE7 search not anti-competitive. The text of the report can be viewed here, or downloaded in PDF format [pdf] from the Department of Justice's Web site.
Posted by Kevin Heller at 04:09 PM
May 01, 2006
Broadcast Flag Returns
Alex Curtis is dropping Public Knowledge with regard to this new draft telecom bill that includes language to authorize the FCC to instate the broadcast flag.
Posted by Kevin Heller at 09:41 PM
April 25, 2006
Save the Internet
Posted by Kevin Heller at 10:32 PM
April 24, 2006
Net Neutrality
Public Knowledge created a little video on net neutrality and posted it on youtube to help people understand the issues.
Update: House Net Neutrality Amendment Loses 34-22
Update -- Declan on Net Neutrality: "Whatever you think of the desirability of Net neutrality, keep in mind what the legislation actually says. It would award the FCC the power to regulate what business models will be permitted on the next generation of the Internet." --Declan
Posted by Kevin Heller at 02:58 PM
April 21, 2006
What rating for goatse?
Bush administration proposes mandatory Web rating, with criminal penalties: "Web site operators posting sexually explicit information must place official government warning labels on their pages or risk being imprisoned for up to five years, the Bush administration proposed Thursday..."
Will we have to embed the ratings in the title tags of our deep-links?
"a mandatory rating system backed by criminal penalties is 'antithetical to the First Amendment,' said Marv Johnson, legislative counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union."
"During his speech, Gonzales also warned that Internet service providers must begin to retain records of their customers' activities to aid in future criminal prosecutions..."
Posted by Kevin Heller at 12:11 PM
March 04, 2006
Potential Problem for Internet Anonymity
BoingBoing posts:
NJ Assemblyman introduces bill to force online identification Jason Schultz says,LinkPeter J. Biondi, NJ Assemblyman for District 16, has introduced A1327, a bill to force every ISP and website with comments/forums to demand user identification from every single poster (called an "information content provider" in the bill). While ostensibly an effort to stop defamation on the net, the identification requirements apply to all posters, not just those who defame others.Link
Posted by Kevin Heller at 07:33 PM
February 26, 2006
Top Cyberspace IP Cases of 2005
as compiled by John Ottaviani of the Technology & Marketing Law Blog: Top Cyberspace IP Cases of 2005.
Grokster, WhenU, Napster, Hulk, Patents, Purdy, Gonzalez, Blizzard, Falwell, Kremer.
* Grokster
* Coca-Cola Co. v. Purdy: The final factor considers whether the degree of purchaser care can eliminate any likelihood of confusion which would otherwise exist between the products. Several courts have noted that the quick and effortless nature of "surfing" the Internet makes it unlikely that consumers can avoid confusion through the exercise of due care: "In the internet context, in particular, entering a website takes little effort - usually one click from a linked site or a search engine's list; thus, Web surfers are more likely to be confused as to the ownership of a web site than traditional patrons of a brick-and-mortar store would be of a store's ownership."
* BMG Music et al. v. Gonzalez: Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in a file sharing suit against an individual file sharer accused of downloading 30 songs. The court rejected fair use and innocent infringer defences.
Gonzalez asserts that the "fair use" defense applies because she: (1) was just "sampling" the songs to determine if she wanted to purchase them; (2) already owned [*3] many of the songs she downloaded; and (3) did not cause any financial harm by downloading 30 songs. These contentions are without merit. First, the Ninth Circuit in A&M Records, Inc., 239 F.3d at 1014-19, rejected the argument that "sampling" by direct infringers is a "fair use." Second, the contention that Gonzalez already owned some of the recordings she downloaded is not relevant because the Recording Companies only seek redress for songs that Gonzalez admits she did not own.
Under section 402(d), however, the "innocent" infringement defense is not applicable "if a notice of copyright in the form and position specified by this section appears on the published [recordings] to which [the infringer] had access." (Emphasis added.) While it is undisputed that the copyrights of 30 songs at issue were properly noticed on the covers of CDs, Gonzalez contends that she has raised a question of fact as to whether she had access to the notice. Although it is true that Gonzalez did not have actual possession of these CDs, section 402(d) does not require proof that the infringer had "actual possession." 2 Nimmer on Copyright, §7.02[C][3], at 7-17 n.25 (2004). Instead, the plaintiff need only show that the CDs with notice "were in circulation [and] available" to the infringer. Id.
* Bosley Med. Inst. v. Kremer: NonCommercial Domain Name Trademark Use OK; Ninth Circuit joins 5th & 6th in okaying non-commercial gripe sites. The Ninth Circuit has held that the use of a business owner's trademark as the domain name of a noncommercial website — the subject of which is consumer commentary about the products and services represented by the mark — does not constitute infringement under the Lanham Act. Bosley Med. Inst. v. Kremer, No. 04-55962 (9th Cir. April 04, 2005) To read the full text of this opinion, go here.
* 1-800 Contacts, Inc. v. Whenu.com, Inc., No. 04-0026, 04-0446 (2d Cir. June 27, 2005) (defendant's "pop up" advertisements, which appear on computer screens contemporaneously with the appearance of plaintiff's internet website, do not infringe upon plaintiff's trademark.) [pdf of the decision] 2nd Cir. says pop up ads don't confuse.
* Fallwell's that ends well for free speech. Check out James Griffith's coverage of Falwell Critic Permitted to Keep "fallwell.com" Gripe Site Domain Name.
Posted by Kevin Heller at 07:54 PM
VeriSign wants to control dot com registry forever
Bob Parsons, founder of Godaddy.com and seller of domain names says that "VeriSign has somehow persuaded ICANN to propose a new contract where VeriSign will be the permanent and unregulated controller of the .COM registry. VeriSign would also get the right of presumptive renewal. This means when the new contract for the .COM registry comes up for renewal in 2012, it won’t be put out for bid – like the .NET contract was in 2005 – instead it will simply renew in VeriSign’s favor." Hot Points - A huge scam in the making. The .COM registry contract. VeriSign: Shame on you!
Related: "We Are Inept. Replace Us." by Bret Fausett
Posted by Kevin Heller at 06:33 PM
February 20, 2006
Google's Response to the DOJ
For all of these reasons, the Court must reject the Government's Motion.
Response to the DoJ motion [pdf] posted by Nicole Wong, Associate General Counsel.
Posted by Kevin Heller at 02:05 PM
February 09, 2006
Enjoin the Intent to Annoy Act
Declan McCullagh [via Politech] posted links to the complaint [pdf] and news coverage regarding the operator of an anonymous emailing service who filed an injunction against enforcing the law which seems to have some free speech implications:
"respectfully requests that the Court enter judgment as follows:
A. Declare that 47 U.S.C. §223 violates the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution;
B. Preliminarily and permanently enjoin defendants from enforcing the
above-noted statutory provision;"
I'm just glad the act doesn't apply to weblogs... otherwise how would I amuse myself.
Previously: Intent to Annoy
Posted by Kevin Heller at 11:02 PM
January 24, 2006
A Million Little Bits of Information
I want to recommend that you focus on the following for one day:
The Broadcast Flag - EFF, Public Knowledge, boingboing
Government Domestic Spying Program - (see e.g. DOJ wants your search records, NYT, EFF)
Related: Boycott DRM, Legislating Decency
Previously: Google v. the DOJ, Congress could care less about its constituents
Posted by Kevin Heller at 12:22 AM
January 21, 2006
Government Google Search Saga...
* Letter from Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales [pdf] (Senator demands info on search engine subpoena) (recently added)
* Court Documents & Summary Of United States Versus Google Over Search Data
* Google Resists U.S. Subpoena of Search Data
* AOL denies it complied with DOJ search subpoena
* Do No Evil and Perhaps Do Some Good: Google, Privacy, and Business Records
Posted by Kevin Heller at 01:08 AM
January 20, 2006
Search Subpoena Compliance
Techdirt reports that Yahoo, MSN and AOL were all asked to produce search records and complied.
Previous Posts:
Gonzalez v. Google Subpoena [jpg]
Bush asks for Google Search Data
Posted by Kevin Heller at 12:27 PM
January 19, 2006
Gonzalez v. Google
January 18, 2006
View the Government's Motion to Compel Google to comply with the Subpoena
Download the Declaration of Joel McElvain.
Download the Declaration of Philip Stark, a professor of statistics at the University of California, Berkeley. Stark said in a statement that analysing information from Google would let him "estimate the prevalence of harmful-to-minors" and the "effectiveness of content filters" in blocking it. [Google fights US gov't request for search data]
Posted by Kevin Heller at 09:12 PM
Bush asks for Google Search Data
The Bush administration has asked a California district court judge to order Google to turn over 1 million random web addresses and records of all Google searches from any one-week period.
The government argues that it needs the information as it prepares to once again defend the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act in a federal court in Pennsylvania. The law was struck down in 2004 because it was too broad and could prevent adults from accessing legal porn sites.Google, to its credit has refused to comply with a subpoena issued last year and says that releasing the information would violate the privacy rights of its users and reveal company trade secrets.
Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, said the company will fight the government's effort vigorously: "Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching."[paraphrased and quoted from Feds after Google data By Howard Mintz in the Mercury News] [via Techdirt]
The Case: Ashcroft v. ACLU, No. 03-218 (U.S.S.C. June 29, 2004) A divided (5-4) U.S. Supreme Court on June 29, 2004 barred enforcement of a 1998 federal law designed to keep Internet pornography away from minors because it likely violates constitutional free-speech rights.
Links:
* internet privacy decisions roundup
* Ashcroft v. ACLU link roundup
* Free porn, Google, spam, Internet censorship, and the Supreme Court
(tags: free speech internet regulation copa google privacy)
Posted by Kevin Heller at 09:24 AM
January 13, 2006
Yahoo!, the French and Nazi memorabilia in the 9th
Professor Susan Crawford says that the Yahoo! v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L'Antisemitisme (9th Cir. Jan 12, 2006) [PDF ] "all boils down to this statement in the majority opinion":
First Amendment issues arising out of international Internet use are new, important and difficult. We should not rush to decide such issues based on an inadequate, incomplete or unclear record. We should proceed carefully, with awareness of the limitations of our judicial competence, in this undeveloped area of the law.You can read the rest of her post here: Prudence on all sides.
Posted by at 04:28 PM
January 09, 2006
With Intent to Annoy
This act still seems very unclear to me even after reading the post at Concurring Opinions.
Previously: Declan McCullagh reported that annoying someone via the internet is now a federal crime. [via]
Related: The Erosion of Anonymous Internet Speech: New Federal Law To Prohibit "Cyberstalking" by Eric J. Sinrod: Attorney Eric Sinrod discusses a new federal law prohibiting annoying Internet postings or emails that do not disclose the true identities of the writers. Sinrod argues that this new "Preventing Cyberstalking" law conflicts with the First Amendment's guarantee of the right to speak anonymously.
(tags: free speech anonymous)
Posted by Kevin Heller at 01:49 PM