ITC Continues to See IP Case Growth in 2012. This article has been archived, and is no longer available on this website.
LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via lexis.com® and Nexis®. This includes content from The National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.
ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content. 2nd Circuit Revives Copyright Case Against Google, YouTube. Saurik explains why jailbreaking should remain legal. Back in January we told you that the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) was asking for everyone’s help in its fight to keep jailbreaking legal.
It suggested leaving a comment on the Copyright Office’s comment board to show your support. The board closed on February 10th, and the Copyright Office recently published everyone’s entries. And even though there were only about 700 comments submitted, some big names turned out to defend jailbreaking, including Saurik… Jay Freeman, also known as Saurik–the creator of Cydia, filled up 6 pages with opinions and evidence on why jailbreaking should remain legal. Here’s an excerpt from his comment: “In order to bypass these restrictions, some developers have taken it upon themselves to help users escape the “jails” in which they feel manufacturers have them trapped.
It’s worth reading the entire thing — it’s pretty interesting. In 2010, the US government ruled that jailbreaking was legal, but that decision is set to expire later this year. In All This Talk Of Pinterest And Copyright, The Fact That It's Driving Massive Traffic Seems Important. We already wrote about the pointless copyright freakout that some are having about Pinterest -- and since then, not a day has gone by without someone pointing us to yet another hysterical article by someone about how Pinterest is some copyright horror show.
Lately there have been a bunch of... silly... stories about the specifics of Pinterest's terms of service. However, in all of this debate, one rather important point seems to have been left out of most of the discussions: Pinterest drives a ton of traffic back to original sources. For all the concerns about how Pinterest is infringing on various sites and copyright holders, the reality appears to be that it drives so much traffic that it's difficult to understand why people are complaining: Beginning this summer, Pinterest became the top social referrer for marthastewartweddings.com and marthastewart.com, sending more traffic to both properties than Facebook and Twitter combined. Lawyer assesses Pinterest's copyright situation.
Why the acronyms PIPA and SOPA should worry Kiwis « The Standard. Green’s MP Gareth Hughes explains the new US internet laws that have the likes of Wikipedia upset, and why we should care: The Green Party is deeply concerned about the Stop Internet Piracy (SOPA) and PROTECT IP (PIPA) Acts currently causing quite a stir in the US and its impacts on New Zealanders access to a free and open Internet and online businesses.
Copyright is always a balance however these proposed laws give rights-holders exceptional and unprecedented powers. These proposed draconian laws could see Kiwi websites blocked from the US and effectively the world by blocking search engines and other websites from linking as well as terminating online payment based on allegations requiring costly litigation to remedy. Imagine a small Kiwi online business blocked from Google searches, running online advertising or even processing VISA transactions or even losing their domain name because of a US copyright allegation that they can’t afford to challenge in a US court. EU court: Web sites need not check for IP breaches.
Tech and Law.