JOLT Digest

By Tyler Lacey

Federal Prosecutors Launch New Attack Against Online Gamblers in the United States

On June 9, the New York Times reported that federal prosecutors asked four American banks to freeze accounts containing money believed to be used for distributing winnings to online poker players. Wells Fargo, one of the contacted banks, received a court order requiring that the funds be frozen. Professor I. Nelson Rose of Whittier Law School described the move as “surprising” and as a “gamble” by the prosecutors. Professor Rose also said that it is unclear what laws apply to the seizure of individuals’ money.

Canadian Government Decides Not to Regulate Internet Video and Audio Broadcasts

Canadian radio and television broadcasters are required by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) to broadcast a minimum amount of Canadian content. On June 9, Ars Technica reported that the CRTC issued a report saying that although internet audio and video do count as “broadcasting” for the purposes of their regulatory schemes, they will retain a regulatory exemption from providing Canadian content. The CRTC’s decision, while currently supported by major providers of online audio and video such as Google, leaves open the possibility that the CRTC will impose future regulations.

Electronic Frontier Foundation Urges Court to Hold Email Protected Under the Fourth Amendment

On June 10, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) filed an amicus brief in the Sixth Circuit’s ongoing case Warshak v. United States. The brief argues that the Justice Department violated Warshak’s Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy in his email. The EFF reports that “the government acquired over 27,000 emails spanning over six months from Warshak’s email provider, all without probable cause.” The basis of EFF’s position is that email should receive the same protection against unlawful search and seizure as is given to phone calls, postal mail, and private papers kept at home.

Court Abused Discretion by Failing to Apply eBay Factors

On June 9, Patently-O reported that the Federal Circuit remanded a patent dispute case back to the district court because it failed to consider the eBay factors in its refusal to grant a permanent injunction to the patent holder. In the eBay case, the Supreme Court required a patentee seeking injunctive relief to “demonstrate (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.”

Mary J. Blige’s “Family Affair” Not a Copyright Violation
By Jia Ryu – Edited by Anthony Kammer

Jones v. Blige
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, March 9, 2009
Slip Opinion

On March 9, 2009, the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed a Michigan district court’s grant of summary judgment for defendant, Mary J. Blige in a copyright infringement case. Plaintiffs Leonard Jones and James E. White had filed suit against Defendants Mary J. Blige, Andre Young (aka “Dr. Dre”), Universal Music Group (“UMG”), and others for copyright infringement.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, holding that the songs were not substantially similar and that the Plaintiffs had not provided sufficient evidence to establish Defendants’ access to their work under the “corporate receipt” doctrine. Exclusive Rights offers commentary, focusing on the distinction made in this case between the corporate receipt doctrine and “bare corporate receipt.” The Michigan Messenger briefly summarized the opinion here. (more…)

Sixth Circuit Affirms Conviction of Counterfeit DVD Importer 
By Dmitriy Tishyevich – Edited by Nicola Carah 

United States v. Teh
Sixth Circuit, July 31, 2008, No. 06-2371 
Slip Opinion 

On July 31, the 6th Circuit affirmed the conviction of Thiah Teh, who was indicted after airport officials searched his luggage and found what appeared to be 756 counterfeited DVDs and 284 counterfeited DVD sleeve packages.  Teh was found guilty and sentenced to one year of probation under 18 U.S.C. § 545, which imposes fines and up to twenty years imprisonment for “knowingly import[ing] . . . merchandise contrary to law.”  Although the government did not indicate at trial what statutory provision provided the basis for the “contrary to law” element of the § 545 violation, it asserted on appeal that Teh’s actions violated 18 U.S.C. § 2318, which provides felony  penalties for up to 5 years for importing counterfeit labels, documentation, or packaging. 

Teh argued on appeal, inter alia, that a copyright violation could not serve as the basis for a § 545 offense under Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), which held that distribution of bootleg sound recordings could not be prosecuted under the National Stolen Property Act (”NSPA”).  The Supreme Court reasoned that, by enacting the Copyright Act, Congress intended to address copyright violations with more precision than the NSPA would allow.  In addition, the Court also expressed concern that civil copyright violations might otherwise come within the ambit of the criminal trafficking statute, which carries significantly more serious penalties. 

(more…)

Sixth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of § 1983 Claim Arising from Publication of SSN on County Website

By Evan Kubota — Edited by David Lawson

Lambert v. Hartman et al.
Sixth Circuit, February 25, 2007, No. 07-3154
Slip Opinion
District Court Order

On February 25, the Sixth Circuit affirmed a ruling of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio dismissing a § 1983 claim brought against the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts and Board of City Commissioners by a victim of identity theft, after the clerk published the victim’s Social Security number and other identifying information on a publicly accessible website. The court held that potential financial harm alone was insufficient to implicate the “fundamental liberty interest” necessary to trigger a right to informational privacy.

Online commentary on the appellate decision has been light, despite its potentially serious implications.
The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society elucidated the district court opinion.
The circuit court cited Helen L. Gilbert’s interesting Chicago Law Review Comment on informational privacy.

(more…)