Court Issues TRO Against Sales of Beatles Music “Simulation”

Ars Technica reports that on November 5, a Central District of California judge issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against BlueBeat.com, a website offering 25-cent downloads and free streaming of thousands of copyrighted songs, most notably including the entire Beatles catalog. The order is part of a suit filed on November 3 by Capitol, EMI, Priority, and Virgin Records, claiming copyright infringement and various state law violations. In its ill-received opposition to the TRO, BlueBeat asserted in part that the sound recordings it sells were not copied from the originals, but instead were “independently developed” through a “psycho-acoustic simulation” process.

New York Files Suit Against Intel

New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo filed an antitrust lawsuit against Intel on November 4, The New York Times and The Washington Post report. The complaint focuses on Intel’s relationships with Dell, Hewlett-Packard, and IBM, asserting that the company has used what amounts to coercion and bribery to ensure the use of its chips over those of its main competitor, Advanced Micro Devices. This is the second antitrust action taken against Intel in the U.S — the first, an FTC administrative complaint, was filed in 1998 and later settled. Since 2005, however, Intel has battled and lost antitrust disputes in the EU, Japan, and South Korea.

Anti-Net Neutrality Bill Introduced in House

On October 30, Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced a House bill that would ban the FCC from issuing “any regulations regarding the Internet,” PCMag.com reports. The bill came eight days after the FCC issued its proposed net neutrality rulemaking, and a week after Sen. John McCain introduced a similar bill in the Senate. Blackburn framed the bill as an effort to preserve the Internet as “the last truly open public marketplace”; supporters of FCC regulation counter that the proposed nondiscrimination rule is necessary to preserve that openness.

Gamer Appeals Ban from Sony’s Playstation 3 Network

On September 22, 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed Erik Estavillo’s lawsuit against Sony. Fox40.com reports that Estavillo was banned from Sony’s Playstation 3 Network after allegedly uttering “racial and homophobic slurs to other online gamers.” Estavillo alleged that his freedom of expression was abridged, and likened Sony’s network to a company town. The district court dismissed Estavillo’s First Amendment claims, stating: “Sony’s Network is not similar to a company town. The Network does not serve a substantial portion of a municipality’s functions, but rather serves solely as a forum for people to interact subject to specific contractual terms.” Estavillo recently appealed the dismissal to the Ninth Circuit and has also filed a second lawsuit against Sony.

German Government Pledges to Protect Online Journalism in Germany with a “New Kind of Copyright”

On October 29, 2009, the New York Times reported that Germany’s governing coalition “has pledged to create a new kind of copyright to protect online journalism” with the goal of “level[ing] the playing field with Internet companies like Google.” German publishers fear that Google may be “exploiting their content to build lucrative businesses without sharing the rewards.” Google aggregates news from many news outlets on its Google News website; however, Google News operates in Europe without collecting any advertising revenue. Although “[d]etails of how the proposal would work have not been spelled out,” analysts believes that the new copyright scheme may allow online journalists to “claim royalties for the use of their content by Google or other online ‘aggregators’ of news.” In support of the new scheme, counsel for the German Newspaper Publishers Association argues that there is “no fundamental right to information for free on the Internet.”

United Kingdom to Crack Down on Online Piracy; Could Lead to Outright Disconnection of Pirates

On October 28, 2009, the BBC reported on new legislation that will come into force in the United Kingdom in April 2010. Although “the details of it would need to be hammered out at European level,” the legislation will impose bandwidth restriction on suspected pirates. If necessary, more restrictions will be introduced in the spring of 2011 that could completely disconnect the suspected pirates from the Internet. The legislation already faces challenge from ISP TalkTalk, which has created a “Don’t Disconnect Us” campaign and threatened litigation. Although the legislation is designed to protect the United Kingdom’s creative content industries, legislators emphasize that the long-term solution is for “the industry to educate users and to offer new and cheaper ways to download content.”

Back to Drawing Board for Pa. State Legislature in Protecting Trademark Holders
By Brittany Blueitt – Edited by Stephanie Weiner

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Omar, No. J-162A-B-2008 (Pa. Oct. 5, 2009)
Majority Opinion (Baer, J.)
Concurring Opinion (Castille, J.)
Dissenting Opinion (Eakin, J.)
Dissenting Opinion (Greenspan, J.)

On October 5, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed two consolidated Centre County Court of Common Pleas decisions dismissing criminal trademark counterfeiting charges on the ground that Pennsylvania’s Trademark Counterfeiting Statute, 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4119, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.  The court held that the statute is unconstitutional because it criminalizes a substantial amount of speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.  Commonwealth v. Omar, No. J-162A-B-2008, slip op. at 10 (Pa. Oct. 5, 2009).

IP Spotlight provides an overview of the case. CNBC features an extended analysis of the decision.  The Madisonian declares the decision overly formalistic.

The Centre County Court of Common Pleas had previously held the statute unconstitutional in Commonwealth v. Garrity, No.1999-2264 (Pa. March 27, 2000), on the ground it punishes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech. The Trademark Counterfeiting Statute criminalizes conduct by a person who “knowingly manufactures, uses, displays, advertises, distributes, offers for sale, sells or possesses with intent to sell or distribute any items or services bearing or identified by a counterfeit mark.”  The statute defines “counterfeit mark” broadly to include any “unauthorized reproduction or copy of intellectual property,” and defines “intellectual property” as “any trademark, service mark, trade name, label, term, device, design or word adopted or used by a person to identify that person’s goods or services.” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 4119.

In both Commonwealth v. Omar and Commonwealth v. O’Connor, the trial court dismissed charges brought against the defendants under the Trademark Counterfeiting Statute for possession of counterfeit Nike sneakers and distribution of hats bearing the Penn State logo, respectively, based on the Garrity decision.  The Commonwealth appealed both dismissals, which were consolidated for decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Justice Baer, writing for the Supreme Court, reasoned that a statute is unconstitutionally overbroad where it punishes a substantial amount of lawful, constitutionally protected activity as well as illegal activity. The court refused to narrow the statute, finding that its words are “clear and free from all ambiguity and thus “the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.”  Taking particular issue with the prohibition of any “use” of such a mark, the court concluded that the statute unconstitutionally prohibits protected speech, such as the use of the words “Nike” or “Penn State” on a protest sign, or even their use in the court’s own opinion.

Justices Eakin and Greenspan wrote separate dissenting opinions. Justice Greenspan argued that the court “has an obligation to interpret a statute in a constitutional manner wherever possible.” Finding the statute to be ambiguous, the dissent urged that the court must consider not only the plain language of the statute, but also the legislative intent underlying it. The intent of the Statute is to “prevent individuals from deceptively utilizing a recognized mark in the context of a sale or distribution” and not to criminalize “the mere use of a recognized word or phrase.” Finally, Justice Greenspan noted that both Omar and O’Connor had illegally violated Nike and Penn State’s trademarks and to overturn their convictions based on the overbreadth of the Statute “has an aura of injustice.”

Chief Justice Castille concurred in the opinion, noting that the primary divide between the majority and dissenting opinions was that both Omar and O’Connor were engaged in the precise illegal activity that the Statute was designed to prohibit. The Chief Justice noted, however, that the United States Supreme Court has directed that, in the First Amendment arena, individuals may assert a facial attack against a statute without demonstrating that his or her own conduct was protected.

Congressional Bills: Heading Down the Series of Tubes Near You?

On October 2, The Washington Post reported that the recent proposed health care legislation has re-sparked debate over openness and online information availability in Congress.  A group of 180 members of Congress have signed a petition to require that all bills be placed online for at least 72 hours before voting.  Advocates say this would allow greater government transparency and give legislators time to actually read the bills before voting.  Opponents maintain that 72 hours online won’t make the bills more accessible to citizens or legislators due to the dense legalese, and they also point out that many bills are already posted online 48 hours in advance.

Don’t lol – Cyberbullying is No Joke in Congress

On September 30, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony concerning two bills aimed at combating cyberbullying. One bill, the Megan Meier Cyber Bullying Prevention Act, would criminalize cyberbullying, while the other, the Adolescent Web Awareness Requires Education (“AWARE”) Act would provide funding to schools to teach children about cybercrime, including awareness about cyberbullying.  Ars Technica explains that experts at the hearing expressed concerns that the language of the Megan Meier Act would create free speech concerns and be hard to police, though they generally agreed that the AWARE Act took steps in the right direction to combat cyberbullying conduct.

No Pictures Please: Cameras Prohibited in Seventh Circuit Courtrooms

The Wall Street Journal Blog details the order issued by Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit on September 28th, censuring an Illinois district court judge for allowing the filming of a trial in his courtroom.  Easterbrook explained that the allowance violated policies established by both the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Judicial Conference of the Seventh Circuit, with little elaboration.  The Illinois judge responded apologetically, explaining that he thought he could make an exception to the policies due to the public interest at issue in the case.

Paris Hilton Obtains Small Victory in Ninth Circuit

WSJ Blogs reports that the Ninth Circuit gave Paris Hilton the green light on August 31 to proceed in her lawsuit against Hallmark for its use of her image and the phrase “That’s Hot” in a birthday greeting card. The court made note of the similarities between the card and Hilton’s appearance on the television show “The Simple Life.” In support of Hilton, the court stated that she “has at least some probability of prevailing on the merits before a trier of fact.” The case name is Hilton v. Hallmark Cards.

Cable Companies No Longer Capped at 30% Market Share

The Washington Post reports that on August 28, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Comcast v. FCC invalidated an FCC rule that capped the market share of cable companies at 30%. The FCC supported the rule because it believed that cable companies with market share larger than 30% would harm consumers. The court rejected the FCC’s rule in part because it failed to show how consumers would be harmed by the large cable companies in the current market, given the competition between cable, satellite, and fiber optic providers.

Texas Links DNA to Criminal Records

WSJ Blogs reports that on September 1, a new law took effect in Texas will link DNA evidence to sexual assault suspects’ criminal records. The link will be maintained regardless of whether the statute of limitations has passed or the suspect has been tried. The law’s supporters want to ensure harsher penalties to these suspects should they face legal troubles in the future, as the record would be available to parole boards and prosecutors. Critics of the law, including the ACLU, fear the potential abuse of due process rights.

Florida Bar Wants Access to Certain Applicant Facebook Profiles

The Florida Board of Bar Examiners will now be requesting access to the Facebook profiles of certain applicants on a case-by-case basis. The Board has identified a number of categories of applicants that it will require access from, including persons with a history of certain types of legal experience or substance abuse. The Citizen Media Law Project notes many of the privacy concerns related to the Bar’s decision.

Marine Corps Bans Social Networking Sites

In a directive issued Monday, the U.S. Marine Corps banned the use of social networking sites on its Marine Corps Enterprise Network, Wired and InformationWeek report. Characterizing these sites — including Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter — as “a proven haven for malicious actors and content,” the Corps hopes the ban will protect the network from cyberattacks and keep adversaries from acquiring user-generated information leaks. The directive does not limit Marines’ access to social networking sites on non-military networks, and a follow-up press statement encouraged the use of social media by Marines on their own ISPs.

Senate Hears Debate on Radio Performance Rights

The Senate Judiciary Committee heard debate Tuesday on the proposed Performance Rights Act, which would compel terrestrial radio stations to pay royalties recording artists, Ars Technica reports. Under current copyright law, webcasters and satellite radio stations pay royalties to both a song’s writer and its performer, while terrestrial stations are only obliged to pay songwriters. The debate pits two powerful interest groups, among others, against each other: the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) staunchly opposes the bill, while the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has voiced its strong support.

FTC Takes New View of Online Privacy

The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times report new FTC consumer protection head David Vladeck plans to shift the agency’s approach to online privacy protection. In a New York Times interview, Vladeck states he hopes to address the “notice and consent” framework that he considers “no longer sufficient” online, as it has resulted in privacy disclosures that are rarely read or understood. He also plans to consider not only economic harm, but also the “dignity interest” that arises in online information collection. Though no new rulemaking is yet planned, updated FTC privacy guidelines are expected next summer.

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.

Senators Urge FCC to Carefully Examine Exclusive Cell Phone Deals

On June 16, Ars Technica reported that senators wrote a letter to the FCC voicing concern over exclusivity agreements between service providers and phone manufacturers. The four senators who signed the letter – Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) – expressed particular concern as to whether the deals restrict consumer choice regarding handsets and geographic regions. They also noted that the agreements may disadvantage competing smaller carriers and discourage new innovation. According to the letter, the “Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will convene a hearing this week to examine issues confronting wireless consumers” and decide if legislative action is necessary. Although the iPhone’s exclusivity agreements have garnered the most attention, the letter considers all cell phone carriers.

Microsoft Files Suit After Finding Evidence of Click Fraud

On June 16, the New York Times reported that Microsoft sued three individuals and several corporations for $750,000 in damages for click fraud – manipulating clicks on online advertisements. After noticing suspicious spikes in traffic from auto insurance and World of Warcraft web advertisements, Microsoft began an investigation that eventually uncovered an alleged click fraud manipulation scheme. Microsoft’s complaint alleges that the defendant directed traffic to his competitors’ Web sites so they would pay for the clicks and exhaust their advertising budgets. Jeremy Fain, a vice president of Interactive Advertising Bureau, said that although there is much precedent for mail and wire fraud, there is little regarding internet fraud. He went on to say that this case may “create more of a legal precedent, and more of a legal library of cases to draw from in the future.”

EU Seizure of Indian Drugs Hinders Medicine Dispersal

According to a recent report by Intellectual Property Watch, an increase in European seizures of Indian medicines believed to infringe intellectual property rights has triggered concerns that there is a strategic pattern in enforcement. On June 16, Spicy IP reported that India has recently protested to the TRIPS Council, expressing strong disapproval of EU’s controversial regulations and demanding more transparency of the various seizures. In May, German officials held about 3 million pounds of Amoxicillin on suspicion of a trademark infringement, delaying shipment to the Pacific by 4 weeks. “These random seizures seriously impact our ability to service the healthcare needs of people living in developing countries in a timely manner,” according to a drug supplier spokesperson. The EU claims that it is merely trying to reduce the “fast growing and dangerous” problem of counterfeits in developing countries.

Supreme Court to Consider Business Method Patents

Patently-O reports that the Supreme Court granted certiorari on Bilski v. Doll. The Court will address whether a patentable “process” must be tied to a particular machine or apparatus, or transform a particular article into a different state or thing. The Court will also consider whether this “machine-or-transformation” test, which effectively forecloses meaningful patent protection to many business methods, runs counter to the intent of Congress in enacting 35 U.S.C. § 273 establishing special rules for “method[s] of doing or conducting business. JOLT Digest covers the earlier en banc decision by the Federal Circuit here, and Patently-O offers a detailed summary of the earlier decision here.

Review of NASA Security Regulations Denied

The Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports that on Thursday the Ninth Circuit declined to review en banc a privacy case involving employees at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), a part of NASA. A three-judge panel of the appellate court had previously ruled that NASA’s mandatory background checks threatened workers’ constitutional right to privacy. The petition for rehearing generated a plethora of concurring and dissenting opinions, including an opinion by the appellate court concurring in the denial that referred to the background check as a “free-floating, wide-ranging inquiry with no standards, limits, or guarantee of non-disclosure to third parties.” Three opinions dissenting from the rehearing en banc are available here, here, and here. The JPL employees have also created a website voicing their opposition to the background checks.

Court Dismisses Eavesdropping Lawsuits

Wired reported on Wednesday’s decision by a judge for the Northern District of California to dismiss more than three dozen lawsuits aimed at telecommunication companies for assisting in a Bush administration eavesdropping program. The judge ruled that the companies were entitled to immunity based on legislation passed over the summer, which purports to immunize the telecommunications firms from liability. The Electronic Frontier Foundation plans to appeal the decision.

Wiki Operator Seeks Right to Host Discussions About Circumvention of iPhone’s DRM System

Wired reports that on April 27, BluWiki operator OdioWorks filed a declaratory judgment lawsuit against Apple in order to “clarify the rights of the parties.” Last November, Apple threatened OdioWorks with legal action over a thread discussing how to use unapproved software on both the iPod and iPhone. Apple claimed that the content was “designed to circumvent Apple’s FairPlay digital rights management system” in violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. OdioWorks initially complied with Apple’s takedown demands, but is now being supported by Keker Van Nest and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in its lawsuit.

Ontario to Propose New Legislation Banning Ticketmaster from Reselling Tickets Through Its Subsidiaries

On April 29, The Toronto Star reported that Ontario’s Attorney General Chris Bentley plans to introduce a bill that would outlaw ticket sales companies such as Ticketmaster from reselling their tickets on subsidiary websites. Although ticket scalping is already illegal in Ontario, Bentley says the proposal is in response to complaints from customers upset with Ticketmaster’s practice of reselling tickets at prices above face value on its subsidiary TicketsNow. Ticketmaster had previously agreed to voluntary limitations on its use of TicketsNow in the United States.

European Union Votes to Extend Music Copyright by 20 Years

The European Parliament voted on April 23 to extend the length of musical copyright protection from 50 years to 70 years. If the proposal is approved by the European Council, artists will be able to continue receiving royalties for up to 70 years after the first release of their songs. Ars Technica reports that several groups have criticized the extension because most of the new royalties will go to record labels rather than the original performers of the songs.