Uncategorized

Google v. Oracle: New Supreme Court Precedent on Fair Use of Software Code

Published on: June 1, 2021 | by Robin Gross

SF Bay ISOC Tech Policy Webinar 7 June

The US Supreme Court set an important legal precedent regarding copyright law and computer code in it’s April 2021 landmark legal ruling (Google, LLC v. Oracle America, Inc.) when it ruled that Google’s use of Java Application Programming Interface (API) codes is lawful fair use.

The decade-long litigation stems from Google’s use of API codes which are owned by Oracle, to build a new software platform for mobile phones, the Android platform. Oracle argued that Google’s use of the Java API codes to build new programs was an infringement on Oracle’s copyright in the software.

The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World With No Off Switch

Published on: April 2, 2021 | by Robin Gross

ISOC-april-2021-webinar-horizontal-300x123

I’m moderating a tech policy webinar for the SF Bay Area Internet Society chapter on 5 April 2021 with leading Internet governance academic Dr. Laura DeNardis. Details below – all are welcome to attend and the webinar will be viewable on our chapter’s YouTube channel.

On Monday, April 5, 2021 at 3PM PDT, the San Francisco Bay Area Internet Society (ISOC) chapter will host a tech policy webinar on the topic of “The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch”. Moderated by the chapter’s Policy Chair, Robin Gross, webinar attendees will hear a talk from globally recognized Internet governance scholar Dr. Laura DeNardis on how the “Internet of things” threatens human rights and security and how hidden technical governance arrangements will become the constitution of our future. Bridging cybersecurity and Internet governance concerns, Dr. DeNardis will also discuss how digital networks directly affect and manipulate our physical world — even our own bodies, and how control of this infrastructure has become a proxy for political power. Attendees will also have the opportunity to ask Dr. DeNardis questions on issues related to connecting cyber devices to all aspects of our lives including the impact on privacy, security, democracy, and discrimination.

Dr. DeNardis is the Interim Dean in the School of Communication at American University in Washington, DC, where she also serves as a professor and the Faculty Director of the Internet Governance Lab. Dr. DeNardis has written seven books including “The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch”, which was listed in the Financial Times Best Technology Books of 2020. With a background in information engineering and a doctorate in Science and Technology Studies, Dr. DeNardis studies the social and political implications of Internet technical architecture and governance. She is an affiliated fellow of the Yale Law School Information Society Project and served as its Executive Director from 2008-2011. She previously served as an adjunct Senior Research Scholar in the faculty of international and public affairs at Columbia University and is a frequent keynote speaker at the world’s most prestigious universities and institutions.

2nd Circuit Rules CDA Section 230 Protects Vimeo Over Deleted User Account

Published on: March 13, 2021 | by Robin Gross

Online Platforms Provided Significant Discretion Over What They Choose to Delete on Their Systems

Section230c-300x156 On 11 March 2021, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously upheld a ruling issued from the Southern District in New York that dismissed a lawsuit brought by James Domen and Church United alleging Vimeo discriminated against them for deleting the Church United’s account from its online video hosting platform. Both the lower court and the appellate court found that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (“CDA”) immunizes Vimeo from this lawsuit.

James Domen and Church United alleged that Vimeo discriminated against them on the basis of their religion and sexual orientation when it deleted Church United’s account from Vimeo’s platform. The district court concluded that Vimeo deleted Church United’s account because of Church United’s violation of one of Vimeo’s content policies barring the promotion of sexual orientation change efforts (“SOCE”) on its platform. This policy, in turn, fell within the confines of the good-faith content policing immunity that the CDA provides to interactive computer services.

The 26 Words that Built the Internet: Section 230

Published on: February 22, 2021 | by Robin Gross

The Future of Section 230 and its Impact on Innovation, Free Speech, and Democracy

https://www.imaginelawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/557/2021/02/Screen-Shot-2021-03-13-at-3.36.45-PM-300x250.png

Please join the SF Bay Area Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC) on Monday 8 March 2021 for a tech policy webinar on the topic of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), the 26 words that created the Internet 25 years ago this month. 47 USC Section 230 is the law that in many cases protects Internet users, social media, and other Internet companies from legal liability for the speech of third-parties that they repeat or amply in their posts or emails or on their websites and online platforms. The law has fueled the growth of the Internet and generated billions of dollars of value from an online economy, even creating entirely new categories of business models, often involving user generated content. Section 230 has given US tech companies a significant legal advantage over their competition in foreign countries that do not provide such legal immunities for the online speech of third-parties.

While Silicon Valley was built on the protections afforded by Section 230, there exist many calls to reform or repeal the law, which has also played a role in the spread of online disinformation and other dangerous content that can cause harm offline. Several legislative proposals have recently been made in Congress to amend Section 230, including a proposal from several Democratic Senators that would curtail the immunity for paid content and wrongful-death actions and aims to enforce antitrust and civil rights laws online. Meanwhile, some Republicans call for repealing Section 230 altogether, because of grievances over content moderation on tech companies’ platforms. Unsurprisingly, civil liberties groups urge caution on Section 230 reform due to the law’s promotion of technological innovation and freedom of expression and the potential for reform to open a pandora’s box of unintended consequences.

Audible Agrees to Delay Rollout of Audiobooks Caption Feature Pending Court Ruling After Big Publishers Sue for Copyright Infringement

Published on: August 29, 2019 | by Robin Gross

Seven of the US’ largest book publishing companies sued Audible, Inc. for copyright infringement in anticipation of Audible’s rollout of a new captions feature to their audiobooks. The complaint, filed in federal court in the Southern District of New York on 23 August 2019 alleges that Audible’s planned inclusion of the text of a book in the distribution of an audiobook violates their copyrights in the books. The publishers say that while Audible has the right to distribute the audiobooks, Audible does not have the right to include the text with the audiobook.

“Audible is a distributor of Publishers’ audiobooks and no more has the right to create and offer Distributed Text than a physical book store selling physical books would have the right to make and sell eBooks,” stated the complaint.

The plaintiffs, all member companies of the Association of American Publishers, asked the court for a preliminary and permanent injunction barring Audible’s planned rollout of the caption feature in their audiobooks on 10 September 2019.

3rd Circuit to Review Decision That Could Shutter Online Marketplaces

Published on: August 28, 2019 | by Robin Gross

CDA 230 Does Not Protect Online Businesses From Product Liability Claims Related to 3rd-Party Vendors

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has decided to review en banc a controversial panel decision issued last month over the liability of online marketplaces for the goods they sell. The 3rd Circuit panel’s order in Oberdorf v. Amazon, (930 F.3d 136, 2019 WL 2849153 (3d Cir. July 3, 2019)) represented the first time a federal appeals court found an online marketplace strictly liable for the products sold on its platform by third-parties.

Amazon’s Marketplace allows third-party vendors to sell goods to Amazon customers via its website. Ms. Oberdorf purchased a defective dog collar from a third-party vendor, Furry Gang, via Marketplace. The collar subsequently broke, causing a retractable leash to recoil back and permanently blind Oberdorf in one eye. Furry Gang could not be located by either Oberdorf or Amazon; Oberdorf sued Amazon for strict products liability and negligence under Pennsylvania state law for selling the defective dog collar. Amazon’s position is that it is not a “seller” as defined under Pennsylvania products liability law because it merely provides an online marketplace for products sold by third-party vendors.

Don’t Kill the Golden Goose: Communications Decency Act (CDA) Section 230 Fosters Internet Innovation

Published on: August 13, 2019 | by Robin Gross

Politicians on both sides of the aisle in the US face mounting pressure to curtail the limitations on liability for online activity provided by Section 230 of the 1997 Communications Decency Act (DCA). 47 US Code Section 230 is the primary law that allows online companies like Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, Google, YouTube, Instagram, VRBO, and thousands of other businesses to provide online services to consumers without fear of liability for the postings of their customers or other third-parties.

In other words, CDA 230 is critical to technological innovation and the development of tools that enable a robust public dialogue. As described in Reason:

“…practically the entire suite of products we think of as the internet—search engines, social media, online publications with comments sections, Wikis, private message boards, matchmaking apps, job search sites, consumer review tools, digital marketplaces, Airbnb, cloud storage companies, podcast distributors, app stores, GIF clearinghouses, crowdsourced funding platforms, chat tools, email newsletters, online classifieds, video sharing venues, and the vast majority of what makes up our day-to-day digital experience—have benefited from the protections offered by Section 230.

Trent Reznor Puts Fans in Charge with Successful Experimental Business Model

Published on: March 5, 2008 | by Robin Gross

Trent Reznor has rocked the music world once again. The long-time front man for Nine-Inch-Nails is convinced the current music business infrastructure is broken since it requires artists to rely on labels. Reznor is looking for a new model.

Last year NIN broke free from its major label and decided to go independent, look to its fans for support, and experiment with new business models made possible by the Internet.

So far, I’d say its working for Reznor and NIN. Within 36 hours of releasing the band’s latest album online with a variety of payment options, including free, it sold-out the 2,500 $300 Limited Edition Ultra-Deluxe Packages, grossing the ARTISTS $750,000 on the album’s first 2 days available, from that option alone.

The Contract Behind the Curtain: A Glimpse into the San Francisco Ballet Dancer’s Contract

Published on: February 29, 2008 | by Robin Gross

If you are also a ballet geek, you may find the Basic Agreement between the San Francisco Ballet and the American Guild of Musical Artists fascinating.

I wrote an article highlighting some of the more interesting terms in this collective bargaining agreement that is signed by every ballet dancer (and choreographer) who works with the San Francisco Ballet.

However the Basic Agreement contains only *minimum* commitments to artists. Dancers and choreographers also sign an “Individual Artist’s Agreement” with the company that can include higher salaries and other negotiated perks. The dancers and choreographers pay AGMA dues of 2% of their gross compensation under the Basic Agreement. Read the full article for the details:

Monterey Jazz Festival’s Innovative Digital Music Education Project

Published on: January 11, 2008 | by Robin Gross

Jazz Music Education for the Masses

My client, the legendary Monterey Jazz Festival (MJF) has launched an exciting new project, the Digital Music Education Project (DMEP) that uses the power of the Internet to bring jazz music education to the masses.

Besides hosting the hottest jazz concert each year, the Monterey Jazz Festival is a nonprofit organization that invests its resources in jazz music education programs, especially in the local public schools. But now thanks to MJF’s Digital Music Education Project, those educational opportunities are captured, digitized, and made available for free download by anyone in the world. Listen to today’s top jazz artists give advice to students or discuss their own musical influences from the DMEP website. “Master classes” taught by renowned jazz experts can be accessible by anyone via the Internet.