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...

By Alea Mitchell
Edited by Cary Mayberger
Editorial Policy

Innovative hosting of user-generated content on the Internet, and a subsequent increase in unauthorized copyrighted material among this content, means reimagining copyright jurisprudence. The issue of how we protect an owner’s “exclusive” right to reproduce, distribute, and publicly perform his or her work, while not stifling advances in global communication and technology, underlies the concern in recent infringement suits brought against online hosts like YouTube, eBay, Hi5, and Veoh. See 17 U.S.C. § 106(1), (3), (4) (1976). But while the legal system has risen to the challenge with reinterpreted rules and legislation, Facebook continues to defy categorization.

This comment attempts to demonstrate the difficulty in categorizing certain service providers by looking at Facebook in the wake of the Viacom International v. YouTube, Inc. decision, No. 07 CIV. 2103, 2010 WL 2532404, at *8-9 (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010), of which Facebook filed a joint amicus brief in support of the defendants. Part I of the comment presents a brief overview of the Viacom court’s interpretation of “safe harbors” provided under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) and Facebook’s amicus brief. Part II explores whether certain activities on Facebook constitute copyright infringement. Finally, Part III pools these two together and examines why the DMCA “notice-and-takedown” process, as articulated in Viacom, may not be a workable copyright protection scheme for Facebook. Ultimately, I suggest that Facebook’s blurred private/public structure makes it unlikely that the DMCA notice-and-takedown scheme can adequately protect copyrights infringed by Facebook users. (more…)

Posted On Dec - 17 - 2010 1 Comment READ FULL POST

The Digest will be taking a short break from our regular coverage over the coming weeks as our Staff Writers finish fall examinations and go on holiday.

While we take our hiatus from regular coverage, we have the pleasure of re-introducing our Comments feature. Comments are longer opinion pieces on especially significant issues. These pieces are written entirely by members of our staff, on topics they believe warrant closer examination and study. From now until mid-January, we will publish one Comment every week. We have great pieces this year and we hope you enjoy them!

We’ll be back sometime in January with our usual coverage.

We sincerely hope you’ve enjoyed our work this year!

The Digest Staff

Posted On Dec - 17 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

District Court Looks Unfavorably Toward Unilateral Contract Amendments through Web Page Updates
By Katie Booth – Edited by Esther Kang

Roling v. E*Trade Securities, LLC, No. 10-0488  (N.D. Cal. Nov. 11, 2010)
Slip Opinion hosted by Scribd.com

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that plaintiffs’ claim that E*TRADE’s brokerage agreement was unconscionable was sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. E*TRADE could change the terms of the brokerage agreement by posting revised terms on its website. According to Judge Marilyn Patel, plaintiffs’ allegations that E*TRADE’s brokerage agreement was both unilateral and did not provide for adequate notice of changes to consumers  were sufficient to allege a claim for unjust enrichment based on unenforceability.

Eric Goldman comments on the decision. He particularly notes that agreements like E*TRADE’s brokerage agreement, which allow companies to make unilateral modifications to contract terms by posting changes on the their websites, pose great risks that courts will find these provisions unconscionable and ultimately invalidate the entire contract. (more…)

Posted On Dec - 7 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

By Emily Hootkins

FTC Proposes ‘Do Not Track’ System for the Web

CNET reports that the Federal Trade Commission is endorsing a “Do Not Track” mechanism for the web, reminiscent of its popular “Do Not Call” list. David Vladeck, director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, envisions the concept as “a setting similar to a persistent cookie” that would signal whether the consumer is willing to be tracked or receive targeted advertisements. PC Magazine highlights some potential technical difficulties of such a proposal, such as the absence of a persistent, individualized identifier: unlike telephone numbers, a person’s IP address can change, and computers are often operated by multiple users. The FTC is currently asking stakeholders to submit comments on this proposal.

Federal Authorities Drop Charges in Xbox-Modding Suit

PCWorld reports that the first criminal trial for game-console modding has been dismissed. The prosecution dropped the case “based on fairness and justice,” after conceding its error in not disclosing to the defense important facts that would be presented in the first witness’ testimony. As Wired reports, federal authorities charged Matthew Crippen with modifying Xboxes to enable them to play pirated games. Crippen was prosecuted under untested provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act; it remains to be seen whether the government will make another attempt at pursuing criminal charges for game-console modding.

Congress Approves Legislation to Regulate Sound Volume of Television Advertisements

The Wall Street Journal reports that Congress has approved legislation prohibiting television advertisements from being played at volumes louder than regular television programming. The bill, known as the Commercial Advertising Loudness Migration (CALM) Act, will require advertisers to adopt industry technology that modulates sound levels. Ars Technica notes that loud commercials are consistently one of the most common consumer FCC complaints about television. If President Obama signs the bill into law, advertisers will have one year to come into compliance with the Act.

Senate Judiciary Committee Passes Fashion Design Protection Bill

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Senate Judiciary Committee has unanimously passed the Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prohibition Act. If enacted, this bill will give clothing designers intellectual property rights in their fashion designs. The bill provides a three-year term of protection for designs that demonstrate novelty and originality. According to Reuters, the bill contains important exceptions that address controversial aspects of previous bills providing for fashion copyrights. There is an “independent creation” defense, which a designer can assert if an independently-created design happens to overlap with a copyrighted design. The bill also includes a home sewing exception, and establishes a strict standard that requires designs to be “substantially identical” to support claims of infringement.

Posted On Dec - 5 - 2010 Comments Off READ FULL POST

Federal Appeals Court Affirms the Denial of A123’s Motion to Reopen
By Stuart K. Tubis – Edited by Janet Freilich

A123 Systems, Inc. v. Hydro-Quebec, No. 2010-1059 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10,  2010)
Slip Opinion

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, which had denied A123’s motion to reopen and dismissed the court’s declaratory judgment against Hydro-Quebec (“HQ”).

The Federal Circuit addressed three major issues in its decision. First, it held that “because HQ had acquired less than all substantial rights in the patents in suit, [the University of Texas ("UT")] is a necessary party to A123’s declaratory judgment action.” Second, the court upheld UT’s sovereign immunity rights, despite the fact that UT had waived those rights in a related litigation in Texas. Finally, the court found that UT was both a necessary and an indispensable party to the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 19, and that the district court properly dismissed the action due to UT’s absence in the litigation.

The Green Patent Blog provides an overview of the case. Patent Prospector also discusses the case, with some commentary below. (more…)

Posted On Dec - 2 - 2010 Comments Off 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 ...