DMCA/CDA

Whew, that is a mouthful.  I was a teenage werewolf?  No, I was a guest on URBusiness Network’s CHAOS Tuesday Internet Radio Show. Here’s what it means.

URBusiness Network, or “URBN,” is, in its own words, an “online radio station streaming 24/7 with business specific programing.”  This is, needless to say, not your father’s radio station. In fact, it is “radio” only by analogy. Think “entirely new business technology model made possible by increases in Internet bandwidth.” In other words, this is a relatively new industry, with minimal barriers to entry (low cost, no FCC regulation) and unlimited geographic reach. URBN is a small but serious player in this market.

One of the many Internet radio shows URBN produces is “CHAOS Tuesday,” the brainchild of Jim Johnson, founder of The Standish Group.  The Standish Group is an organization with expertise in large (and I mean very large) software projects.  … Read the full article

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows a copyright holder to send a takedown notice to an online service provider that is hosting a copyright-protected work posted by a third party. But, lest the law be used to suppress lawful speech, the DMCA requires that a takedown notice contain (among other things) a “statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law,” and certify, under the penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate.

What if someone sends a takedown notice that is authorized by the law, and does so in bad faith? The law provides that –

[a]ny person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section . . . that material or activity is infringing . . . shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer .

Read the full article

Slides From Copyright/Trademark CLE

by Lee Gesmer on April 27, 2012

I’ve posted the slides from a CLE talk I gave on Wednesday, April 25th.  Hopefully, the  slides are informative standing alone.  They address the very recent DMCA decisions by the 9th Circuit (Veoh) and 2nd Circuit (Youtube), the copyright “first sale” doctrine as applied to digital files in the Redigi case pending in SDNY, and recent trademark “keyword advertising” cases decided in the 4th and 9th Circuits (Rosetta Stone in the 4th Circuit, Network Automation and Louis Vuitton in the 9th).  There are also some slides devoted to the CFAA, including the 9th Circuit’s en banc decision in the Nosal case.

If the embedded Scribd document doesn’t appear on your computer directly below, click here to go directly to Scribd

Copyright and Trademark Issues on the InternetRead the full article

I’ll be reading this decision, issued today, more carefully in the next day or two, but my first impression is that it’s a win for supporters of the DMCA safe harbor statute based on various legal rulings, and a loss for Youtube based on the really dumb behavior of Youtube’s founders.  Of course, these guys didn’t know, back in 2005, that seven years later the courts would be judging whether they were aware that they were hosting copyrighted videos.  If they had known, they might not have emailed each other comments like these:

  • “[W]e need views, [but] I’m a little concerned with the recent [S]upreme [C]ourt ruling on copyrighted material”
  • “[S]ave your meal money for some lawsuits!”
  • “concentrate all of our efforts in building up our numbers as aggressively as we can through whatever tactics, however evil”
  • “our dirty little secret . . . is that we actually just want to sell out quickly”

And there’s more like that.… Read the full article