JOLT Digest

By Geng Chen

Violent Video Game Fight Ends Not With a Bang, But With an Invoice

The Sacramento Bee had the last word in the California violent video games saga. California taxpayers will end up bearing the $1.8 million bill for legal services related to defending the controversial state statute, struck down by a 7-2 vote in the Supreme Court last year in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n. It would have prevented retailers from selling video games depicting killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexual assault to minors. No child was ever prohibited from purchasing these games, however, as lower courts had blocked implementation of the law since the initial preemptive challenge by industry representatives. The $1.8 million includes the legal fees borne by the video game industry, totaling $1.3 million. The remaining $500,000 represents the hours spent by the state attorney general’s office in defending the case.

FCC Tightens Regulations on Telemarketing Robocalls

The LA Times describes the Federal Communications Commission’s newly revised telemarketing regulations on robo-calls. These automated, pre-recorded marketing messages will be prohibited unless the telemarketer obtains prior written consent. The exemption for companies with an “established business relationship” with consumers will be eliminated. According to the FCC, such a relationship can form when the consumer contacts the business to ask a question or makes a purchase. Furthermore, ABC News reports that a consumer will also have the power to opt out from future calls within the first two seconds of the message. According to the Wall Street Journal, the telemarketer would then have to hang up and add that number to the company’s do-not-call list. However, certain organizations, including nonprofits such as local schools and churches, or political groups and pollsters, may still make these calls. The new rules are expected to take effect after review by the Office of Management and Budget.

European Right to Be Forgotten Raises Questions About Free Speech

The European Commission’s proposed online privacy rules create a new “right to be forgotten,” reports Time. An individual would be able to demand that online companies delete information about him or her, unless the company can demonstrate a legitimate reason not to. The stated intent behind the new rules is to protect the future employment prospects of young people from the consequences of damaging photos or information on social network sites. However, some commentators have expressed concern over the potential impacts on free speech. In the Stanford Law Review Online, George Washington Law Professor Jeffrey Rosen cautioned against a broad application of the new rules, in particular applying the right to be forgotten to truthful information posted by third parties. Even though the new regulations allow companies to retain the information if the need to do so is legitimate, shifting this legal burden of proof to the company may cause it to take a conservative approach and comply with all complaints. Although the European Commissioner Viviane Reding has made reassurances that the right to be forgotten will not “take precedence over freedom of expression or freedom of the media” (as reported by the Wall Street Journal), Rosen contends that the law, currently written to include “any information related to a data subject,” is uncomfortably broad.

By Ivar Hartmann

European Commission VP demands more revenue for artists

Neelie Kroes, Vice President of the European Commission responsible for Digital Agenda, publicly supported changes to the current copyright system in Europe. In a speech entitled “Who feeds the artist?” at the Forum D’Avignon on Nov. 19th, Kroes criticized the scarcity of revenue that copyright legislation and other areas of law reserve for artists. “Speaking of economic reward: if that is the aim of our current copyright system, we’re failing here”, stated Kroes. She cited examples of artists in the UK and Germany, the majority of which earn a “paltry payment” often lower than the minimum wage in those countries. She proposed a number of solutions including the use of information and communications technology and Cloud computing to find better ways to distribute creative content and connect artists with their consumers. She also supported adopting improved legislation that would better “feed art, and feed artists.”

ECJ rules against forced surveillance by ISPs

On Nov. 24th, the Court of Justice of the European Union announced in a press release that EU law precludes an injunction imposed by the Brussels First Instance Court, which ordered Scarlet Extended SA, an internet service provider (ISP) to install a system for monitoring its electronic communications to prevent illegal file-sharing. The Belgian Society of Authors, Composers and Publishers (SABAM) had sued Scarlet, alleging that some of its users were using the ISP’s services to illegally download SABAM’s protected catalogs from the internet. After weighing the “right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the right to receive or impart information, on the other,” the Court of Justice held that forcing the ISP to monitor users in order to protect intellectual property was an unfair balance of the rights involved.

No Safe Harbor for Grooveshark

CNET reports that the Universal Music Group (UMG) filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Grooveshark, a music streaming website, on Nov. 18th. According to The Hollywood Reporter, the grounds for the lawsuit “go[]further than most copyright complaints.” UMG alleges that Grooveshark’s own CEO and employees have committed the infringing activity. TIME reports that at least 1,791 songs were illicitly uploaded by Grooveshark. Despite accounts that the proof of such wrongdoing is somewhat shady, UMG is seeking the maximum compensation for each illegal upload ($150,000) and an injunction to shut down Grooveshark.

Two Wins for Net Neutrality

Within one week of each other, the U.S. Senate and the European Parliament voted in favor of adopting net neutrality regulations. CNET reports that the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC) net neutrality regulations in a 52-46 vote. Similarly, Computing reports that the European Parliament adopted a resolution that promotes a broad concept of net neutrality. Unlike the FCC’s regulations, the EU’s resolution does not distinguish between mobile and fixed internet service providers (ISPs). But in line with the FCC’s open Internet rules, the EU’s resolution also calls on regulatory bodies to monitor the way ISP manage their traffic on the Internet.

Third Circuit Affirms Prior Decision to Strike Down FCC Fine for CBS Broadcast of Janet Jackson’s Breast During Super Bowl Halftime Show
By Abby Lauer – Edited by Albert Wang

CBS Corp. v. FCC, No. 06-3575 (3d Cir. Nov. 2, 2011)
Slip Opinion

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its earlier decision throwing out a $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission imposed on broadcasting corporation CBS for airing a split-second image of Janet Jackson’s exposed breast during the 2004 Super Bowl Halftime Show.

Reaching the same conclusion as it had in a 2008 ruling, the Third Circuit held that CBS’s broadcast was legal under the FCC’s policy at the time, which permitted networks to air instances of “fleeting” indecency without being sanctioned. The Court of Appeals ruled that it was arbitrary and capricious for the FCC to change its policy retroactively and impose a steep fine on CBS without notifying the network of the policy change. In reaffirming its 2008 ruling, the Third Circuit declined to change its position in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009), which upheld the FCC’s decision to abandon its safe harbor for broadcasted expletives that are not repeated. The Third Circuit stated that “Fox confirms our previous ruling in this case and that we should readopt our earlier analysis and holding that the [FCC] acted arbitrarily . . . .” Slip op. at 5.

SCOTUSblog provides an overview of the case. Ars Technica also describes the decision and discusses possible implications for future prime time broadcasts.

(more…)

By Marsha Sukach

FCC and CTIA Announce Plan to Reduce “Bill Shock”

The FCC, the wireless communications association CTIA, and Consumers Union have announced a plan to help customers avoid “bill shock,” or the discovery of unexpected charges that consumers must pay when they exceed their monthly voice, data, and text limits. The FCC identified bill shock as a major problem, CNET reports, with many complaints from consumers who were surprised to find additional charges on their bill. A year ago, the FCC proposed adopting a regulation forcing wireless providers to send alerts to consumers, but this regulation was heavily opposed in the industry. Instead, under the current deal, wireless providers covering 97 percent of users have agreed to provide consumers with alerts voluntarily, according to the Washington Post. The new alerts will begin within 18 months, and will include wireless phone and tablet services, CNET explains.

Verisign Wants Authority to Shut Down Websites Without a Court Order

Verisign, the company that manages .com and .net registrations, wants the power to shut down websites on the request of law enforcement, TIME reports. Verisign filed a request with ICANN, the nonprofit that oversees the Internet’s domain name system, to “allow the denial, cancellation or transfer” of domain name registrations to comply with “laws, government rules or requirements, requests of law enforcement or other governmental quasi-governmental agency, or any dispute resolution process.” The policy is aimed largely at taking down sites that harbor malware, launch phishing attacks, or are otherwise used to launch attacks across the Internet, reports Ars Technica. However, the language does not indicate that the proposed policy will be limited to such cases, and some experts worry that this authority would create an opportunity for abuse by law enforcement.

Amazon’s Kindle Fire Raises Privacy Concerns

Amazon’s coming tablet, the Kindle Fire, is raising privacy concerns with its new Silk browser, ZDNet reports. While Silk may provide faster browsing, funneling all user activity through Amazon’s own servers, it can also track everything that a user does on the web, and create a permanent record of those activities. In Congress, there has been unease on both sides of the aisle, as well as a demand for answers, according to Ars Technica. Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), co-Chair of the Congressional Bi-Partisan Privacy Caucus, wrote a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos inquiring about the nature of the information that Amazon plans to collect, how it plans to use the information, and the level of control that customers will have over their data. When Amazon first introduced the Fire, writes the New York Times, it drew a distinction between activity on its own site, which is individually tracked with the user’s permission, and activity on the rest of the internet, which would be aggregated but not linked to users’ identities. Concerns remain, but EFF concludes that it is generally satisfied with Silk’s privacy design, saying that users can easily turn off cloud acceleration mode, and that the safeguards create sufficient protection.

by Alea J. Mitchell

Obama Seeks Secure Online Identities

The White House Blog announced that President Obama released the “National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace” (PDF), a plan to improve online security and e-commerce. The proposal is aimed at combating online fraud and identity theft, and calls on the private sector to design a trusted identity system to better protect an increasingly wired culture. Wired reports the proposal distances itself from a national ID approach and instead urges the private sector to develop ways for consumers to create privacy-enhancing secure identity credentials that will enable safer online transactions.

Senators Kerry and McCain Propose Online Privacy Legislation

Wired reports that Senators John Kerry (D-Massachusetts) and John McCain (R-Arizona) introduced on Tuesday the Commercial Privacy Bill of Rights, online privacy legislation that would allow web users to demand websites stop tracking and selling their online behavior.  The bill aims to regulate how identifiable information is used, stored, and distributed. Ars Technica reports that consumer groups criticize the bill for shying away from overt “Do Not Track” legislation, giving special interest treatment to social media marketers, and creating a conflict of interest by allowing the Department of Commerce to influence privacy policies.

House Votes to Repeal Net Neutrality Rules

Reuters reports that the House of Representatives voted last Friday to reject the FCC’s net neutrality rules, which were adopted last year and bar Internet service providers from blocking or interfering with traffic on their networks. The Hill reports that Republicans, who oppose the rules, claim the FCC lacks authority to regulate the Internet and that net neutrality rules impose unwarranted government regulation over an open and thriving Internet. The largely partisan effort is expected to fail once the legislation reaches the Democratic-controlled Senate. As Wired reports, the vote is largely symbolic, as President Obama has promised to veto any legislation proposing to reverse the rules.

Congress Revisits COICA

Ars Technica reports that the battle over the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) is heating up again as both chambers draft amended versions of COICA, set to be rolled out in coming weeks. Last November, JOLT reported on the bill, which would grant the Attorney General power to seize domain names through in rem action and require online ad services and credit card companies to stop working with blacklisted sites, with the goal of targeting foreign piracy and counterfeiting sites not easily reached by US courts. While the Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously approved the bill, it never made it to the Senate floor, owing to efforts of Senator Ron Wyden, who has again vowed to oppose the bill. Wired reports that Google’s Kent Walker testified at one of two recently held House hearings to oppose the Act, particularly the private right of action a COICA claim would give rightsholders. The Citizen Media Law Project laments the bill’s return.