Archive for August, 2012

Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2012-08-31

August 31st, 2012

<ul class=”aktt_tweet_digest”>
<li>Admissibility of Social Media Evidence: A Case Study <a href=”http://t.co/vEuvdRmT” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/vEuvdRmT</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241129821537714176″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>New post: Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2012-08-30 <a href=”http://t.co/67rRJuZB” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/67rRJuZB</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241153566046310402″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>Publishers to pay $69 million over e-book price-fixing allegations <a href=”http://t.co/m3VsqrZ5″ rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/m3VsqrZ5</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241336722531704832″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>Amazon inks deal to sell e-books through other retailers <a href=”http://t.co/fBf6kGKj” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/fBf6kGKj</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241337178330918912″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>Twitter advertisers can now target users by their interests – pipeda compliant? <a href=”http://t.co/CQNozIAs” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/CQNozIAs</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241338563109736448″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>Apple and Google are in talks to settle patent issues <a href=”http://t.co/fj5iZeDJ” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/fj5iZeDJ</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241338949954588672″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>Germany backs law that would charge Google for linking to news <a href=”http://t.co/7idDgQQB” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/7idDgQQB</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241340625545478144″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>Malaysia retains controversial Internet law after activists unsuccessful blackout to stop it <a href=”http://t.co/1H9aQSfU” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/1H9aQSfU</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241342051206176769″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>You Wein some, you lose some as another copyright case heads for the CJEU <a href=”http://t.co/gumUntn2″ rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/gumUntn2</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241342769870819328″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>The Big Online Rip-Off: can authors and copyright owners fight back? <a href=”http://t.co/kAv2Khlx” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/kAv2Khlx</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241343395648389120″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>The big online rip off <a href=”http://t.co/RUmiuCAn” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/RUmiuCAn</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241344341140975616″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>The Pirates And Trolls Of Porn Valley <a href=”http://t.co/3ovGHBq3″ rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/3ovGHBq3</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241344678480465921″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
<li>Are Craigslist Ads Copyrightable? <a href=”http://t.co/Eg1CIhuA” rel=”nofollow”>http://t.co/Eg1CIhuA</a> <a href=”http://twitter.com/bsookman/statuses/241345295458373632″ class=”aktt_tweet_time”>#</a></li>
</ul>

Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2012-08-30

August 30th, 2012

Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2012-08-29

August 29th, 2012
  • Link to US TRE MILANO v. Amazon. com case finding Amazon not likely liable for counterfeit goods sold on its site
    http://t.co/eeD17yM0 #
  • US court refuses injunction to protect trade secret on 1st Amendment grounds in CII CARBON, LLC v. Kurczy
    http://t.co/x3yrRgyP #
  • BC court rules that changing content of emails can be conversion, Insurance Corporation of British Columbia v. COPEU
    http://t.co/U9f7sLph #
  • Retrospective entitlement to exploitation rights of joint owners in cinematographic works unconstitutional http://t.co/onuMdhSD #
  • Canada's "First to File" Change to Patent Law Harmed Small Inventors http://t.co/Zq6EXQT4 #

ivi copyright injunction in the public interest says US Appeals Court

August 28th, 2012

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals released its decision in the WPIX, INC., v ivi INC. 2012 WL 3645304, (2nd.Cir.Aug. 27, 2012) case yesterday. It dismissed ivi’s appeal from a preliminary injunction prohibiting Ivi from continuing to stream television programming over the Internet.

ivi’s defense was that it was a cable system entitled to a compulsory license under § 111 of the US Copyright Act. The US Second Circuit reviewed the statute’s legislative history, development, and purpose which indicated that Congress did not intend for § 111 licenses to extend to Internet retransmissions. This was consistent with the view of US Copyright Office’s interpretation of § 111 that Internet retransmission services do not constitute cable systems under § 111. The Court accordingly concluded that “the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of the case.”

Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2012-08-28

August 28th, 2012

Computer and Internet Law Weekly Updates for 2012-08-26

August 26th, 2012

Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2012-08-26

August 26th, 2012

Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2012-08-25

August 25th, 2012

Was the $675,000 damage award against Joel Tenenbaum for file sharing excessive?

August 24th, 2012

Was the statutory damages award of $675,000 against Joel Tenebaum for downloading and distributing 30 music files over peer-to-peer networks excessive? Did it violate US due process? According to a decision released by a U.S. District Court yesterday in the Sony BMG Music Entertainment v Tenebaum 2012 WL 3639053, (D.Mass., Aug. 23, 2012) case, the answer to both questions is no.

After a five-day jury trial, the jury found that Tenenbaum’s infringement was willful as to each of the thirty sound recordings in issue, and returned a verdict within the US statutory range of $22,500 per infringement, for a total damages award of $675,000.  After an appeal of the jury verdict, the Court was charged with the duty of determining whether the award was excessive under the common law remittitur doctrine and whether it violated due process.

Computer and Internet Law Updates for 2012-08-24

August 24th, 2012