Hank Barry asked me recently to consider why humans think differently (e.g.
Issue-spotting the Live Web, attorney Denise Howell muses about cutting edge technology-related legal issues.
Denise Howell is an appellate, intellectual property and technology lawyer who enjoys broad industry recognition for her expertise on the intersection of emerging technologies and law.
Was just about to post something along these lines, but see The Vulture already has done all that I could do, and more:USA Today reports that the Regal Entertainment Group, the largest owner of movie theaters in the country, is introducing a wireless device into 114 theaters that allows patrons to anonymously report gripes about the moviegoing experience.
I was just using EchoSign to circulate a Google Docs-created agreement for signature, and the potential for integrating these two services fairly bashed me over the head. Talk about flying contracts!
Techmeme is all a-flutter, and my ZDNet colleagues have been right on top of the Digg/HD-DVD crack story. Here's my quick take on things, as I run off to OnHollywood (where Kevin Rose spoke this morning):Nothing says Digg has to respond to a mere demand letter under any circumstances.
I'll be moderating a session at Supernova that will look at whether social media can survive intellectual property law, and will feature general counsel from both YouTube and Viacom in addition to the always insightful Fred von Lohmann, Dabble founder and former bIPblogger Mary Hodder, and noted IP lawyer Ron Dreben.
Perfect 10 v. CCBill: "direct financial benefit" means infringing material must draw users, says Ninth Circuit
In its recent decision in Perfect 10 v. CCBill, the Ninth Circuit interprets a provision of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act that will be crucial to the outcome of Viacom v. YouTube. Per the Ninth Circuit, if the presence of infringing material is merely an "added benefit" for users and not a primary draw, a defendant should be immune from liability for the infringing acts of others. Of course the Second Circuit, where Viacom v. YouTube is pending, frequently disagrees with the Ninth Circuit's take on such things.
My thoughts about consensus on a blogging code of conduct are unchanged: consensus is unlikely, but the discussion is useful. Here are some comments I sent this morning to an editor at Der Spiegel Online (is it just me, or is the tenor of these questions in keeping with a certain presumption of loutishness?
YouTube is the anyone, anywhere video channel, and its tags bring order to its millions of clips. Realizing this, Jeff Jarvis encouraged people to post their questions to Presidential candidates and tag them "prezconference." Among the candidates, Joe Biden gets "First Post" honors.
I was quoted by a BBC reporter in a piece about the legal and ethical ramifications of the Kathy Sierra incident. Though the piece used many of my comments verbatim, it did not include them in full and suggested I disagreed with Tim O'Reilly about the advisability of a blogging code of conduct. In fact, I'm all for such a code. I do not think such a code addresses all the problems raised by this situation, particularly the indirect responsibility problem.
Kathy Sierra's plight has ignited the blogosphere and the press. But who should suffer because Ms. Sierra is suffering? And are existing legal protections sufficient to ensure that only those who should, will?