JOLT Digest

Conviction in Lori Drew MySpace Case Thrown Out

By Vera Ranieri – Edited by Amanda Rice
United States v. Drew, No. CR 08-0582-GW (C.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2009)
Opinion

On August 28, 2009, Judge Wu of the Central District of California released a written opinion outlining his reasons for granting Lori Drew’s FRCP 29(c) motion for a post-verdict acquittal, a decision he had initially announced in early July. Judge Wu’s decision overturned the jury’s conviction of Lori Drew for violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (”CFAA”) by breaching the MySpace Terms of Service (”ToS”).

Ars Technica and Wired summarize the case. Eric Goldman provides a thoughtful analysis of the case, characterizing it as “a good jurisprudential development” while criticizing its lack of clarity. (more…)

By Brian Kozlowski

Lori Drew “Cyberbullying” Conviction Thrown Out

The Los Angeles Times reports that on July 2nd, a federal judge dismissed the case against “cyberbully” Lori Drew, saying that the clear terms of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) preclude a guilty verdict. The Lori Drew case received widespread media attention eight months ago when the 50 year-old mother was found guilty of “unauthorized computer access” under the CFFA for aiding her daughter in creating a fake MySpace account that led to another girl’s suicide. The guilty verdict was ardently criticized for criminalizing violations of websites’ terms of service, which few users actually read when creating accounts, essentially allowing websites to make their own law.

China’s Mandatory Client-Side Censoring Program Delayed

Only a day before the previously announced July 1st deadline, the Chinese government announced, through official news agency Xinhua, a delay in the requirement that PC makers pre-install a web-filtering program called “Green Dam Youth Escort.” The Wall Street Journal reports that the project is not abandoned, but merely delayed. Green Dam was first released several months ago as a pornography-filtering program and didn’t evolve into a requirement until the beginning of June, much to the chagrin of PC manufacturers. After the University of Michigan discovered serious security holes, which would open computers to remote code execution, PC manufacturers began to worry about liability issues and possibly acquiring reputations for supporting censorship. So far, only Sony has shipped computers with the software pre-installed in advance of the July 1st deadline.

Supreme Court Allows Remote Storage DVR

Ars Technica and Wired both report that the Supreme Court declined to hear a final appeal in the Cablevision DVR case on the final day of its term. The Second Circuit had allowed Cablevision to continue offering its customers a recording system that is different from traditional recording only in that it stores the customers’ recordings of copyrighted content remotely on Cablevision’s servers. Because the consumer maintains control over the recordings, rather than accessing an on-demand library provided by Cablevision, the court ruled that the recordings were still fair use. Television networks called the case the most important since the 1984 ruling that consumer VHS recording of copyrighted movies falls under fair use. The Supreme Court’s silence aligns with the filing by the Obama administration suggesting that this case was not the appropriate forum to “clarify” the legal issues of fair use.

Another Nesson-RIAA Continue to Clash over File-Sharing

As reported by Ars Technica, Harvard Law professor Charlie Nesson is once more facing off against the RIAA’s MediaSentry in the illegal file-sharing suit against Joel Tenenbaum. Tenenbaum, like Jammie Thomas-Rasset before him, is accused of sharing songs illegally on KaZaa. Nesson and his associates aim to try the same legal tactic that has failed them in the past, namely attempting to discredit the evidence brought by the RIAA as being gathered illegally. The high-profile cases, including controversial high damage awards and internal defense disputes, have been part of a larger attempt to establish solid legal precedent, or prompt a legislative solution, for future file-sharing disputes.

By Brian Kozlowski

Lawsuit Against Brooks Brothers for Falsely Marketing Ties Dismissed

The 271 Patent Blog reports that on May 14, a district court granted Brooks Brothers’ motion to dismiss an action for false marketing. Pro se plaintiff Raymond Stauffer sued Brooks Brothers under section 292 of the Patent Act, which allows damages of “not more than $500″ for each false claim that unpatented items are protected by patent. Under the Act, damages are split between the plaintiff and the government. In Brooks Brothers’ case, the unpatented items were bow ties whose patents expired in 1956.  The district court granted the motion to dismiss based on a lack of “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical,” injury to the public from Brooks Brothers’ marketing claims.

Red Hat-Led Group Appeals Swiss Government’s Award of No-Bid Microsoft Contract

On May 21, Red Hat announced that a group of 18 technology companies filed an appeal with the Swiss Federal Administration Court. The appeal protests the Swiss government’s award of a three-year contract to Microsoft without a bidding process. eWeek explains that the Swiss Federal Bureau for Building and Logistics may award contracts without a bidding process when there is no adequate alternative available. The Red Hat-led group protested the assertion that no alternatives existed, pointing to many competing open source companies, some already used by the Swiss government. PCWorld discusses the rising strength of alternatives to Microsoft software.

Massachusetts Court Holds that TOS Violations Don’t Establish Probable Cause

The Electronic Frontier Foundation reports that on May 21, the Massachusetts Supreme Court granted defendant Riccardo Calixte’s motion to quash a search warrant that allowed police to seize the Boston College student’s computers and other devices. The court found no probable cause for the warrant, noting that violating a website’s terms of service (”TOS”) is not “obtaining computer services by fraud.” LinuxJournal provides a triumphant, but one-sided account of the decision. The issue of TOS violations recently received widespread media coverage in the Lori Drew “cyber-bullying” case, where a jury found that TOS violations can support criminal charges under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

To Students’ Dismay, Plagiarism Detection Website Protected by “Fair Use”

By Sharona Hakimi – Edited by Stephanie Weiner
A.V. v. iParadigms, L.L.C., April 16, 2009, No. 08-1424
Opinion

On April 16, the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a summary judgment ruling by the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, holding that archiving of student works by commercial plagiarism detection website TurnItIn.com is a “fair use” under the Copyright Act, and therefore does not violate the students’ copyrights in their work. Additionally, Circuit Judge Traxler remanded the case to lower court to reconsider the defendant’s counterclaim for monetary damages under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. 1030, based on one plaintiff’s unauthorized access to the site.

The case arose when the plaintiffs were forced by their high school teachers to electronically submit their written work and assent to an online agreement with TurnItIn.com. The website compares student papers to a database of other essays to find instances of plagiarism. At issue was whether the website, operated by defendant iParadigms L.L.C., violated the students’ copyright rights to their work when it archived them for future comparison with other student works.

David Kravets of Wired summarizes the opinion. Nate Anderson, writer for Ars Technica (and a former teacher), analyzes the case and its potential revolutionary effects on education. A recent magazine interview with John M. Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, expresses Barrie’s goals for plagiarism detection services. A 2007 news article discusses the original filing of the case.

(more…)

Lori Drew Convicted on Three Misdemeanor Counts of Violating MySpace Terms of Service in “Cyberbullying” Case
By Brian Kozlowski – Edited By Stephanie Weiner
United States v. Drew, 08-CR-582

A federal jury convicted Lori Drew on November 26th on three of four misdemeanor counts of unauthorized computer access under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (”CFAA”), 18 U.S.C. § 1030, for violating the MySpace terms of service. Drew was acquitted of three felony counts of accessing computers without authorization to inflict emotional harm under the same act. The case has raised widespread objection to the use of criminal liability for violating website terms of service.

The case revolves around the 2006 suicide of 13-year-old Megan Meier following an argument she had on MySpace with “Josh Evans,” a fictional 16-year-old boy whose profile was created under the supervision of Lori Drew. During the 28 days that the account was active, “Josh” established an online relationship with Meier that ended with harsh words and the involvement of other MySpace users. Creation of the fictional account using false information was a violation of the MySpace terms of service, which served as the basis for the computer fraud charges. The prosecution argued, and the jury found, that Drew’s subsequent visits to the MySpace site, in violation of the terms of service, were “unauthorized access” under the terms of the CFAA. Critics point out that this is a very creative use of the CFAA, which is typically used to target hacking and trademark theft. This is the first time it has been used in this fashion.

The New York Times describes the trial outcome, building on an earlier piece from 2007 that gives more factual background on the events. Court documents for the case are hosted on Citizen Media Law Project. (more…)