Convicted Murderer Demands that Wikipedia Remove His Name from Victim’s Article

On November 11, Wired reported that a convicted murderer in Germany has issued a cease-and-desist letter demanding that Wikipedia remove his name from his victim’s Wikipedia article. Wolfgang Werle murdered Bavarian actor Walter Sadlmayr in 1990, and was released on parole in 2007. The letter demands legal fees and compensation for “emotional suffering” caused by the publication of Werle’s name in connection with the murder since his release. German media have already stopped using Werle’s name. Since Wikipedia is an American organization, the Electronic Frontier Foundation describes the issue as “an apparent conflict between the U.S. First Amendment — which protects truthful speech — and German law — which seeks to protect the name and likenesses of private persons from unwanted publicity.”

Senator Criticizes Verizon’s Increased Cancellation Fees as “Anti-Competitive”

On November 10, Ars Technica reported that United States Senator Amy Klobuchar wrote a letter to Verizon, criticizing the company’s announced increase in early cancellation fees for cell phone contracts. Verizon recently announced that, beginning November 15, the fee for cancelling a subsidized smartphone contract would double from a maximum of $175 to $350. Senator Klobuchar, who is a proponent of the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act, called the increase “anti-consumer and anti-competitive.” Senator Klobuchar also wrote a letter to the FCC, asking for an investigation into the competitive and economic impact of the decision on consumers. Verizon noted that consumers can avoid the early termination fees by purchasing smartphones without Verizon subsidies.

United Kingdom Proposes Mandatory Surveillance of Social Networks, Chat Rooms, and Video Games

On November 9, the BBC reported the United Kingdom government has proposed that communication service providers retain records from a variety of new sources including social networks, chat rooms and online games. The move is designed to monitor the parties to and date of each online communication, but not the “actual contents of what was said.” Specific legislation has not yet been introduced, but the proposal includes compensation for the communications providers that must implement the technically challenging requirements. The government has insisted that most concerns about the proposal have only to do with the “detail of what would be done with the information.”

Nokia Sues Apple for Patent Infringement Related to iPhone

On October 22, Nokia filed a suit against Apple in Delaware federal court, alleging that the iPhone infringes patents held by Nokia. The New York Times reports that the specific patents deal with the GSM and UMTS wireless standards utilized by the iPhone for voice and data communication, both of which were developed in part by Nokia. The Wall Street Journal notes that the suit might be a strategic response to the iPhone’s increasing momentum in Europe and Asia. Nokia could gain a two-percent royalty on each iPhone sold if the suit succeeds.

Tennessee Couple Is Entitled to Unmask Anonymous Blogger

On October 8, a Tennessee state court held in Swartz v. Does that a couple is entitled to know the identity of the individual who posted critical statements about them in an online blog. Ars Technica notes that the blogger’s claim to protection under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act likely failed because the blog induced readers to spy on the Swartzes and report back on the blog. The Citizen Media Law Project points out that the legal standard used by the judge in this case was “highly protective of anonymous online speech,” but that the Swartzes provided “sufficient evidence in support of their claims of wrongdoing to outweigh the anonymous blogger’s right to anonymity.”

Cyberattack on U.S. and South Korean Governments Stymies Investigators

Law enforcement officials are still investigating the cyberattacks that hobbled some U.S. and South Korean government websites for five days beginning July 4, the New York Times reports. The distributed denial of service attack caused 50,000 to 65,000 infected computers to jam websites of government agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Secret Service with an extraordinary amount of traffic. Although independent and government investigations have led to computers in Miami, Florida, and the U.K., some experts think finding the ultimate source of the “amateurish” attack may prove to be impossible.

Microsoft Convinces Court IP Addresses Are Not Personally Identifiable Information

MediaPost News reports that in a recent class action case against Microsoft, a federal district court in Seattle held that IP addresses do not count as “personally identifiable information” (PII), a term regularly used in user agreements and online privacy policies. The June 23 opinion granted Microsoft’s motion for summary judgment on charges that it had violated its user agreement by collecting IP addresses during automatic software updates. Judge Richard Jones held that in order to be PII, a piece of data must directly identify “a person,” rather than “a computer,” as an IP address does. The decision is in tension with recent E.U. regulatory findings and a 2008 opinion from the New Jersey Supreme Court, according to MediaPost.

New Zealand Takes Second Swing at “Three Strikes”

On July 14, New Zealand’s Ministry of Economic Development introduced a revised version of its “three strikes” copyright provision aimed at curbing online infringement, Ars Technica and Billboard report. The original bill, which provided for the termination of internet service provider subscribers’ accounts as a penalty for repeat copyright infringement, was scrapped in March after public outcry and industry disagreement. The new version addresses due process concerns by allowing alleged infringers to respond to notices of infringement and to have their cases mediated before trial. Termination of infringers’ internet accounts remains a possible penalty under the revised law.

British Web Tracking Tool Violates European Union Privacy Laws

This Tuesday, the European Union issued a legal warning against Britain for not applying EU data privacy rules to Phorm, a new advertising technology that tracks the Web movements of internet users. BT, Britain’s largest service provider, used Phorm without its customers’ consent during 2006 and 2007. As reported in the New York Times, the European telecommunications commissioner stated that the “European privacy rules are crystal clear: a person’s information can only be used with their prior consent.” The Associated Press describes further actions the European Commission may take if Britain does not adequately enforce European privacy laws.

Proposed Bill Would Remove Sales Tax “Loophole” for Online Purchases

CNET News reports that a congressional bill expected to be introduced early next week “would rewrite the ground rules for mail order and Internet sales.” Under existing law, consumers are responsible for reporting and paying the amount owed for online and mail order purchases under their home state’s sales tax. According to CNET, “California’s Board of Equalization estimates the state lost $1.34 billion in 2003 because residents aren’t paying use taxes–and attributes $208 million of that to online purchases.” The proposed bill could incorporate the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement, which encourages states to simplify their sales tax codes in order to help online retailers collect sales taxes more easily.

Swedish Anti-File Sharing Law Decreases Traffic, Increases Legal Downloads

Enforcement of Sweden’s Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) law began on April 1, 2009. The Local notes that the law resulted in a 30% decrease in online traffic, as well as a doubling of legal music downloads. T3 reports that the in response to the IPRED enforcement, The Pirate Bay plans to offer a Virtual Private Network service that will make internet users more anonymous.

Independent Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie
Court of Appeals of Maryland, February 27, 2009, No. 63
Opinion

On February 27th, the Court of Appeals of Maryland reversed a lower court’s order compelling discovery of the identities of five anonymous Internet forum posters in a defamation action. The court had granted certiorari on its own initiative.  While the court’s holding required it to consider only a pleading issue, it went on to offer guidance to lower courts in future cases involving anonymous Internet speakers in a defamation action.  In doing so, the court adopted the standard from Dendrite International, Inc. v. John Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).

Nixon Peabody’s Digital Media/Internet Law Blog offers analysis of the opinion, concluding that the Dendrite test is “emerging as the leading test across jurisdictions in anonymous Internet speaker cases.”  Ars Technica compares this case to other unsuccessful attempts to uncover the identities of anonymous Internet posters. The Washington Post quotes Paul Alan Levy, a lawyer for the consumer advocacy group that argued the case for Independent Newspapers, who characterizes the opinion as reaffirming the First Amendment right to speak anonymously.

Citizens for Greater Centreville links to the oral arguments and appellate brief in the case.

In 2006, Zebulon J. Brodie filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Queen Anee’s County, alleging defamation and conspiracy to defame, against Independent Newspapers, Inc. and three John Doe defendants known only by their forum usernames.  The allegedly defamatory statements were made on Independent Newspapers’s Internet discussion forum.  Independent Newspapers was dismissed from the case as it was shielded from liability by section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  However, in the same order, the judge compelled Independent Newspapers to comply with Brodie’s subpoena to reveal identifying information regarding five Does who had posted on its forum.

In an opinion by Judge Battaglia, the Court of Appeals reversed because of a pleading problem: the plaintiff had not pleaded a valid defamation claim against any of the five Does subject to the subpoena.  The court held that the trial judge abused his discretion when he denied Independent Newspapers’s motion for a protective order/motion to quash.

The court stated that it granted certiorari in the case not merely to sort out the record, but to offer guidance to trial courts facing the issue of whether to require the disclosure of the identity of an anonymous Internet speaker when it is sought in defamation actions.  The Court of Appeals adopted the standard set forth in Dendrite International, Inc. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001).  This five-part standard requires: (1) that the plaintiff undertake efforts to provide notice to the anonymous posters that they are subject to a subpoena; (2) that the court provide posters a reasonable opportunity to oppose the subpoena; (3) that the plaintiff identify the exact statements alleged actionable; (4) a determination by the court on whether the plaintiff sets forth a prima facie defamation action against the posters; and (5) that the court balance the anonymous posters’ First Amendment rights against the strength of the plaintiff’s prima facie defamation case and the necessity of disclosing the posters’ identities.

In a concurring opinion, Judge Adkins questioned the necessity of the fifth element of the Dendrite standard, arguing that the substantive law of defamation already strikes the proper balance between the competing interests in anonymous speech and reputation.  The judge was concerned that the majority’s test would “invite[] the lower courts to apply, on an ad hoc basis, a ’superlaw’ of Internet defamation that [could] trump the well-established defamation law” and might become an obstacle to pursuit of legitimate causes of actions.

The Court of Appeals’s adoption of the Dendrite standard may make it harder for plaintiffs defamed by anonymous Internet speech to proceed under Maryland law.  Because section 230 of the Communications Decency Act generally shields Internet service providers from defamation arising from defamatory content posted by users, plaintiffs can usually bring defamation claims only against the speakers themselves.  These direct claims will have to survive the five elements of the Dendrite standard in order to identify the anonymous speakers.

Even after a court allows a plaintiff to subpoena identifying information regarding anonymous Internet speakers, he or she may still face an uphill battle.  A recent example involves two female Yale Law School students who were subjected to graphic insults and threats on AutoAdmit, an online discussion forum about law school admission.  Eight months after the court granted the plaintiffs’ subpoena, they were able to identify only several of thirty-nine anonymous online commentators.

Related Reading: Ken S. Meyers, Wikimmunity: Fitting the Communications Decency Act to Wikipedia, 20 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 163 (2006).