A student-run resource for reliable reports on the latest law and technology news
http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Aereo Struggles as Supreme Court Finds It Violated Copyright Law
By Jenny Choi – Edited by Sarah O’Loughlin

On June 25, 2014, in its 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled against Aereo, Inc.  The U.S. Supreme Court held that Aereo violated the Copyright Act of 1976 for streaming TV shows shortly after they were broadcast without paying for the copyrighted works.  As a result, Aereo suspended its service and has struggled to find a way to re-operate its business. This decision has not come without criticism, however, as some warn this ad hoc decision could lead to uncertainty in the courts.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

DRIP Bill Expands UK’s Data Surveillance Power

By Yixuan Long – Edited by Insue Kim

House of Lords passed the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill (“DRIP”) on July 17, 2014. DRIP empowers the UK government to require all companies providing internet-based services to UK customers to retain customer metadata for 12 months. It also expands the government’s ability to directly intercept phone calls and digital communications from any remote storage. Critics claim the bill goes far beyond what is necessary and its fast-track timeframe prevents meaningful discussion.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Federal Circuit Grants Stay of Patent Infringement Litigation Until PTAB Can Complete a Post-Grant Review

By Kyle Pietari – Edited by Insue Kim

Reversing the district court’s decision, the Federal Circuit granted a stay of patent infringement litigation proceedings until the PTAB can complete a post-grant patent validity review. This was the court’s first ruling on a stay when the suit and review process were happening concurrently.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

Ninth Circuit Rejects Fox’s Request to Shut Down Dish Services, Despite Aereo Decision

By Sheri Pan – Edited by Insue Kim

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s denial of Fox’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  Fox argued that the technologies would irreparably harm Fox because they violate copyright laws, but the Ninth Circuit ruled that the district court did not err in finding that the harm alleged by Fox was speculative, noting that Fox had failed to present evidence documenting such harm.

Read More...

http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/joltimg.png

 

Flash Digest: News in Brief

By Patrick Gutierrez

Senate passes bill to make cell phone unlocking legal

ABA urges lawyers to stop pursuing file sharing lawsuits

FBI cautions that driverless cars may be used to assist criminal behavior

Read More...

Icon-newsBy Patrick Gutierrez

6th Circuit holds TheDirty.com immune to suit for defamatory comments made on its website

Earlier this week the Sixth Circuit held that a gossip site, www.TheDirty.com, was not responsible for a defamatory post made by a third party on its website, reversing the lower court’s decision. Jones v. Dirty World Entm’t Recordings, LLP, No. 13-5946 (6th Cir. June 16, 2014). Although an editorial note made by the defendant was appended to the posting on the website, the appeals court ruled that the defendant’s actions were immune to suit under the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”), 47 U.S. Code § 230, which provides that no “provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” The Sixth Circuit reasoned that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the CDA since the website “did not author” or “materially contribute to the illegality” of the third party postings. Jones at 22. Evan Brown provides commentary. (more…)

Posted On Jun - 23 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

Written by: Christopher A. Crawford 

Edited by: Loly Sosa

INTRODUCTION

Since 9/11, Congress has expanded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (“FISA”) several times in order to meet the needs of agencies tasked with defending the U.S. against terrorist attacks. Notable expansions include the PATRIOT Act of 2001, but much of the recent controversy surrounds the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (“FAA”). In 2008, Congress passed the FAA to expand the legal foundation for more systematic surveillance, “establish[ing] a new and independent source of intelligence collection authority, beyond that granted in traditional FISA.” Title VII, § 702 of the FAA is cited by the government as permitting so-called “warrantless wiretaps” on foreign citizens for intelligence-gathering purposes. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (“ACLU”), however, this law allows the National Security Agency (“NSA”) “access to [American citizens’] international communications without warrants, without any suspicion of wrongdoing, and without ever identifying the targets of its surveillance to a court.”

However, the ACLU’s challenge to the FAA last year in Clapper v. Amnesty International failed because plaintiffs, who were American citizens, had no standing; in other words, they could not prove that they had been injured by the law. Plaintiffs had alleged that the FAA’s § 702 surveillance powers were too broad and too vulnerable to abuse against people like themselves who might communicate with a targeted foreign citizen. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, found that the plaintiffs were being overly paranoid and that there was no evidence of the law’s misuse—in other words, plaintiffs needed a “smoking gun” that their privacy had been violated before they could gain standing. (more…)

Posted On Jun - 14 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Andrew Spore – Edited by Travis West

Case C-435/12, ACI Adam BV v. Stichting de Thuiskopie (E.C.J. Apr. 10, 2014)
Slip Opinion

In response to an order issued by the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) on April 10, 2014, the Netherlands has banned the unauthorized downloading of copyrighted material, effective immediately. According to Techdirt, the Dutch government previously had allowed such downloading for personal use because it believed that such a policy was consistent with European Union copyright law. The ECJ held that the Dutch legislation, “which makes no distinction between private copies made from lawful sources and those made from counterfeited or pirated sources cannot be tolerated.” ACI, slip op. at ¶ 37. (more…)

Posted On Apr - 20 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Olga Slobodyanyuk

Icon-newsAmici urge the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its ruling in the “Innocence of Muslims” case

Numerous news organizations, academics and Internet companies have filed briefs in support of Google’s petition for a rehearing of Garcia v. Google, No. 12-57302 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2014), reports Reuters. The Ninth Circuit ruled that Garcia, an actress tricked into appearing for five seconds in an inflammatory anti-Muslim film, was entitled to a preliminary injunction, and it ordered Youtube to take down all copies of “Innocence of Muslims” with Garcia’s performance. Garcia, slip op, at 2. One group of amici support Google’s petition for a rehearing based on the ruling’s unworkability with established business practices and copyright doctrine. This group includes the International Documentary Association; Netflix; technology companies such as Facebook, eBay and Yahoo!; and IP professors, reports Techdirt. According to Reuters, another group of amici focus on Garcia’s exploitation of a copyright “loophole” in the liability shield for online intermediaries. The EFF’s brief, joined by the ACLU, the American Library Association and others, urges for a rehearing “in order to protect free speech in the debate over the film and also to safeguard the future of free expression online.” News organizations such as the Washington Post and NPR raise similar First Amendment concerns in their brief, reports Eric Goldman from The Technology and Marketing Law Blog. He also notes the absence of big entertainment companies from Google’s list of amici and the lack of discussion among the briefs of the fixation issue, “the most obvious legal defect in the panel’s majority opinion.” JOLT Digest and The Washington Post have analyzed the original opinion.

Record companies sue Pandora for royalties on songs made before 1972

In a complaint filed in the New York State Supreme Court last week, major record companies, including Sony, Universal and ABKCO, have alleged that Pandora violated state common law copyright by playing old songs without permission, reports The New York Times. Songs made before 1972 are covered by “a patchwork of state laws,” not by federal copyright law. The lawsuit is similar to the suit filed last year against Sirius XM, another listening service. Songs made after 1972 are covered by federal copyright law – together with Sirius XM, Pandora paid around $656 million in royalties for these songs last year. According to Ars Technica, payment for pre-1972 recordings would earn record companies about $60 million more per year. Pandora acknowledged the possibility of this lawsuit in its annual report to the Securities and Exchange Commission, noting that the company would be significantly liable if it was found to be infringing. However, Pandora told The New York Times that it “was confident in its legal position and looked forward to a quick resolution of the matter.” State copyright laws typically cover misappropriation and unfair competition. These common-law concepts would not traditionally cover Pandora’s performance of the songs, analyzes Techdirt.

Alleged Heartbleed hacker arrested

Stephen Arthuro Solis-Reyes, a 19 year-old Canadian student, was arrested on April 16 for allegedly stealing 900 social security numbers from the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”) using the Heartbleed vulnerability, reports The Washington Post. Solis-Reyes is charged with  one count of “Unauthorized Use of Computer” and one count of “Mischief in Relation to Data” per the Canadian criminal code and is scheduled to appear in court in July, according to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police press release. The CRA discovered the cyber theft of social security numbers on April 11 and has delayed the tax collection deadline from April 30 to May 5 in response, reports the DailyTech. Heartbleed is an OpenSSL flaw which “allows a connected Web client or application that sends messages to keep a connection active during a transfer of data,” explains Ars Technica. According to Top Tech News, the bug has been present for over two years in over 500,000 websites. The attack on the CRA is the first to be recorded since Heartbleed’s discovery, but it was soon followed by an attack at Mumsnet, a British website with around 1.5 million users. Although most websites have upgraded to a secure version of OpenSSL, 50 million Android users may still be vulnerable to a Heartbleed attack.

Posted On Apr - 20 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST

By Geng Chen – Edited by Ashish Bakshi

Photo By: Robert Scoble - CC BY 2.0

Photo By: Robert ScobleCC BY 2.0

Microsoft Corp. v. DataTern, Inc., No. 13-1184 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2014)
Slip Opinion

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York’s rulings in a consolidated declaratory judgment action brought by Microsoft and SAP. Slip op. at 3. The two companies sought a judgment of noninfringement and invalidity for two of DataTern’s patents (the ‘402 and ‘502 patents). See id. at 4. DataTern challenged the district court’s finding that it possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the action because there existed a “substantial controversy . . . of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Id. at 5 (quoting MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007)). The Federal Circuit affirmed with respect to most of Microsoft’s and SAP’s claims, as DataTern’s previous infringement suits against those companies’ customers impliedly asserted contributory and induced infringement claims against the companies themselves. See id. at 9–10.

PatentlyO features a thorough analysis of the decision. Mondaq provides additional analysis. (more…)

Posted On Apr - 19 - 2014 Add Comments READ FULL POST
  • RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • GooglePlay
aereo_antenna_array1

Aereo Struggles as S

Aereo Struggles as Supreme Court Finds It Violated Copyright Law By ...

personal-email-invasion-by-feds

DRIP Bill Expands UK

By Yixuan Long – Edited by Insue Kim HL Bill 37 ...

infringement

Federal Circuit Gran

By Kyle Pietari – Edited by Insue Kim VirtualAgility, Inc., v. ...

socket-api-5

Ninth Circuit Reject

By Sheri Pan – Edited by Insue Kim Fox Broadcasting Company, ...

Icon-news

Flash Digest: News i

By Patrick Gutierrez Senate passes bill to make cell phone unlocking ...