tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-236802872011-10-30T05:25:19.952-04:00Search engines and copyright issues.Nicknoreply@blogger.comBlogger1451100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-91939106324971953232007-11-10T09:36:00.000-05:002007-11-10T09:39:58.218-05:00

Google at the pumpmay be a boon for drivers,but won't help this guy.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-90400902157590461692007-11-02T10:30:00.000-04:002007-11-02T11:32:04.205-04:00

In October, YouTube finally unveiled its anti-piracy filter that it began testing over the summer. While the move can be seen as a response to both the Viacom lawsuit and as an appeasement to content partners, the parties in the Viacom and Premiere League lawsuits are unimpressed. Shortly after YouTube announced its filtering technology, an alliance of major media companies (CBS, Dailymation,

Nicknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-31298058065870117512007-11-01T14:49:00.000-04:002007-11-01T15:04:40.673-04:00

William wrote in to provide a link to a video of a symposium on the Viacom v. YouTube case, sponsored by Santa Clara High Tech Law Institute. The speakers (Fred von Lohman, Tyler Ochoa, Mindy Morton, and Jenny Lynn Cox) provide in depth coverage of the lawsuit, DMCA 512 and the state of the law in this area, and the policy questions raised by the suit. There's pretty much nothing that the group

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-33451017832892187832007-10-29T12:48:00.000-04:002007-10-29T13:44:31.702-04:00

While everyone knows about Viacom's billion dollar lawsuit against YouTube and it's encore, the class action initiated by the Premier League, it should be remembered that LA cameraman Robert Tur's lawsuit against the site was filed first and has been chugging along and is likely to be decided first. Well, at least until last week when Tur got his lawsuit voluntarily dismissed so he can join the

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-15032238561170515102007-08-13T17:36:00.000-04:002007-08-13T18:12:59.397-04:00

According to court documents, YouTube is asking to depose both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in its defense against Viacom's $1 billion lawsuit. What's interesting about this is that Stewart is already on the record in support of YouTube and that Colbert has embraced YouTube and the whole ethos of video sharing/editing to engage his hardcore fans.Assuming they are actually deposed (no

Nicknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-73063551366924326342007-06-13T13:49:00.001-04:002007-06-13T13:59:42.058-04:00

Fear not, the lack of new posts recently is not a sign that this blog is done with, now that I've graduated from law school, nor that Google's legal problems have magically been solved. The Tur, Viacom, and Premiere League suits against YouTube continue to chug along, but there are also some new ones. There was a new development in the Perfect10 case too. Book Search has added more libraries (

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-20749665802552202642007-05-07T12:20:00.000-04:002007-05-07T12:44:57.040-04:00

In the District Court in LA, Viacom and NBC have asked for permission to file amicus briefs for Robert Tur, the video journalist suing YouTube over footage from the Rodney King riots. ZDNet thinks it a sign that NBC may be readying its own suit against YouTube, though NBC's ambiguous relationship with YouTube suggests that the network may just wait out the legal storm. After all, there are

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-53824430222934569792007-05-04T18:52:00.000-04:002007-05-04T19:02:22.645-04:00

This is already turning into a real riot. With the Premier League and Bourne Co. suing YouTube/Google over unauthorized clips (read complaint), it also turns out that their lawyers, Proskauer Rose LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, have started YouTubeClassAction.com (registered back in March) whereby you can keep up to date with the case and even sign-on as a plaintiff in the

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-54182403394160777582007-05-04T18:42:00.000-04:002007-05-04T18:49:23.919-04:00

Here's the complaint in the proposed class action Premier League and Bourne Co. v YouTube and Google. Have yet to fully unpack it but, no joke, it seeks certification as a class action against Google and YouTube with the English Premier League and Bourne Co. (a NY music publishing company) as lead plaintiffs.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-71212701540619922962007-05-04T17:32:00.000-04:002007-05-04T17:53:43.338-04:00

Looks like the English Premier League is now suing YouTube over the posting of unauthorized clips, having filed suit today in the Southern District of New York. I have yet to find a copy of the complaint online, but all the reports cite the complaint as accusing YouTube of encouraging massive copyright infringement, resulting in the loss of valuable content. One report even says that the League

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-65017859114925172042007-05-03T13:11:00.000-04:002007-05-03T13:59:49.747-04:00

To recap, Google was sued last year for copyright infringement by Copiepresse, which represents several Belgian newspapers, over Google News links to newspaper articles. Copiepresse sued in March 2006 after Google debuted a Belgian version of Google News. Google originally failed to respond to the lawsuit, so in September 2006, the judge ruled in favor of Copiepresse and ordered Google to

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-82505274905887560892007-04-30T22:25:00.000-04:002007-04-30T22:31:52.527-04:00

Google filed its answer to Viacom's copyright lawsuit against YouTube (read here). Nothing all that surprising as Google denies all of Viacom's allegations of wrongdoing. According to ZDNet, which has more on Google's response, the next date of note is a scheduling conference on July 27.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-70571347052925028552007-04-25T18:56:00.000-04:002007-04-25T19:17:02.143-04:00

Not a copyright suit, but interesting nonetheless. Looks like a NJ contractor is suing Google for indexing and displaying critical comments about him from the Rip-Off Report (a clearinghouse for consumer complaints). According to 27B/6, when you search for the contractor's firm it is the first result, but the negative comments from Rip-Off Report is number two. After he asked that the page be

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-20007399987022999572007-04-24T11:01:00.000-04:002007-04-24T11:09:32.955-04:00

It's no secret that some Guantanamo Bay detainees are subjected to sessions of disorientingly loud rock music as a way to break their spirits. The question remains whether torture qualifies as a fair use under the Copyright Act. Could an artist sue for infringement if they disapprove of their music being used this way? Should they be paid royalties by the interrogators?If I were a law

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-4808143152455796442007-04-23T18:06:00.000-04:002007-04-23T18:30:31.818-04:00

Viacom has settled with the EFF over a lawsuit claiming that Viacom was sending improper takedown notices. In particular, Viacom had a MoveOn.org video parodying The Colbert Report and several politicians removed from YouTube. The EFF promptly sued, charging that Viacom was misusing the DMCA.In order to prevent errant takedown letters, Viacom says that it will manually review questionable

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-5521081082683105942007-04-16T10:33:00.000-04:002007-04-16T16:42:45.257-04:00

In my last post I linked to a summary from a Fordham conference where lawyers from Viacom and Google/YouTube presented their arguments at a panel. Those into these kinds of things know the arguments on both sides, but it's still nice to see these guys commenting on the thing in public. Notably, the summary says this about Alex MacGillivray (the GooTube rep) and his response to the accusation

Nicknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-25117506821001481912007-04-16T10:16:00.000-04:002007-04-16T10:21:25.337-04:00

Lawyers for Google/YouTube and Viacom speak out on the lawsuit at Fordham International Intellectual Property Law & Policy conference. Prof. Lee from OSU has the scoop at The Utube Blog.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-4442279881136568642007-04-10T21:18:00.000-04:002007-04-10T21:28:27.811-04:00

Wired has a an interview with Google CEO Eric Schmidt that's worth a read. In it he discusses the Viacom lawsuit:Wired: Viacom’s argument is that you’re not working hard enough to keep infringing clips off of YouTube. Schmidt: Well, if they would look at the law, they’d understand that under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there’s a shared responsibility. The law says that the copyright

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-58013381405296572512007-04-02T15:00:00.000-04:002007-04-02T15:22:06.728-04:00

The online tablature business was effectively shut down this past summer as the Music Publishers Association and the Harry Fox Agency under copyright claims that they had the exclusive rights to reproduce music online. Online tablature is back now as the copyright dilemma has been solved. Musicnotes, the largest publisher of sheet music that also purchased MxTabs a while back, has struck a

Nicknoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-88054736987013314262007-03-30T13:12:00.000-04:002007-03-30T13:17:32.477-04:00

GoogleWatch reports that Google has filed for an extension to reply to Viacom's copyright infringement lawsuit. This means that Google's response is due sometime before May 2. GoogleWatch says the extension was needed because Google has yet to retain counsel.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-50408540563827653882007-03-29T19:04:00.000-04:002007-03-29T19:21:04.288-04:00

Last week Viacom took its dispute with YouTube to the court of public opinion, having an OpEd by its head counsel published in WaPo. Not to be outdone, Google has responded in kind with a letter to the editor, calling the lawsuit "an attack on the way people communicate on the Web and on the platforms that allow people to make the Internet their own." More:Viacom is attempting to rewrite

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-42885180248677056702007-03-26T12:58:00.000-04:002007-03-26T13:38:33.493-04:00

Viacom's head lawyer, Michael Fricklas, has an editorial in WaPo saying that YouTube is a leech making money off of other people's intellectual property:Google and YouTube wouldn't be here if not for investment in software and technologies spurred by patent and copyright laws. It's time they respected them.Nice to see Viacom's head counsel's thoughts on the issue, though Fricklas is obviously not

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-81836273005318058052007-03-23T10:29:00.000-04:002007-03-23T10:39:41.325-04:00

"Basically, we're talking about whether its illegal to watch me discussing the legality of you watching me on the Daily Show if you're watching it on YouTube. Maybe I'm on YouTube right now. You watching me on YouTube?"

Nicknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-90328154300867821352007-03-22T17:19:00.000-04:002007-03-22T19:22:58.225-04:00

A recent story described how a doctor was upset that YouTube restricted access to his videos instructing women how to give themselves breast exams to users 18 years of age and older. It is, after all, surprisingly difficult to find porn on YouTube and this makes clear that YouTube has some sort of filtering system to handle such videos. One of Viacom's complaints is why YouTube can't do for

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-77694089649877211722007-03-20T20:37:00.000-04:002007-03-20T20:58:05.578-04:00

The KinderStart case against Google over search rankings has been dismissed as frivolous and the KinderStart attorney will face sanctions requiring him to pay some of Google's legal fees. The amount has yet to be determined. The case was originally dismissed last year, but the company was given a chance to try again. This goes towards setting the standard that you can't sue a search engine

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-14463111591956556672007-03-20T16:26:00.000-04:002007-03-20T16:28:22.270-04:00

It's a good day to be an alum as UW-Madison sticks it to the RIAA.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-25367936294096674372007-03-20T12:20:00.000-04:002007-03-20T16:24:50.162-04:00

Since the Viacom lawsuit against YouTube is primarily an attack on the DMCA, whether its notice and takedown procedure is too burdensome on copyright owners, it's interesting to note that the DMCA protects Viacom's online video sites as much as it protects YouTube.Only days after Viacom sued YouTube, many people have said "Hey, wait a minute. What about iFilm?" iFilm after all is a video

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-28603922535568175192007-03-18T16:19:00.000-04:002007-03-18T16:30:34.914-04:00

Lawrence Lessig writes an OpEd in today's NYT discussing the role of the courts in Viacom v. YouTube. Lessig describes how the Supreme Court has traditionally deferred to Congress in terms of the limits on copyright, a practice that changed with the Grokster decision where SCOTUS crafted its inducement test that had never existed before:But 20 months ago, the Supreme Court reversed this wise

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-10680851748782617972007-03-18T13:24:00.000-04:002007-03-18T15:03:49.392-04:00

CNet takes an interesting look inside Viacom with a profile of Mika Salmi, founder of Atom Entertainment and current president of Global Digital Media for Viacom's MTV networks (which includes MTV, Nickelodeon, and Comedy Central). Many pro-YouTubers accuse Viacom of "not getting the Internet," but it's not that they don't have smart people there, they're just stuck with an old-school corporate

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-86618175223801229802007-03-17T17:15:00.000-04:002007-03-17T17:18:04.986-04:00

Actually, no it's not. It's about the distribution, stupid.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-19952186768172304772007-03-17T12:55:00.000-04:002007-03-18T11:26:13.187-04:00

Count IV in the Viacom v. YouTube complaint is for "inducement of copyright infringement." What is inducement and does YouTube induce people to infringe copyright?Inducement is the idea that a defendant should be liable for its bad intent in encouraging others to infringe copyright. In 2005, the Supreme Court laid out the legal rule for inducement to infringe copyright in MGM v. Grokster, 545

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-54774598144632990392007-03-15T17:22:00.000-04:002007-03-15T17:36:35.042-04:00

Came across something that disturbed me and would like to share. Did a quick Google search for "Grokster" since that decision is the place to go to find out about inducement, and saw that grokster.com is still the number one result. Went to check it out and found that the homepage says:The United States Supreme Court unanimously confirmed that using this service to trade copyrighted

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-34884122085033644752007-03-15T11:28:00.000-04:002007-03-15T12:56:17.413-04:00

Interesting observation by Eric Goldman on CNet yesterday. While the Viacom lawsuit spells trouble for YouTube, it's worth keeping in mind that Google and YouTube are still separate entities and that the issue of video sharing is ancillary to Google's primary business. As Goldman put it on CNet:"Google has plenty of legal albatrosses," said Eric Goldman, assistant professor at Santa Clara

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-18803045311794806552007-03-14T15:24:00.000-04:002007-03-14T22:38:00.458-04:00

And clips of Viacom shows are still on YouTube.Reminds me of Brodie from Mall Rats: "That kid is back on the escalator again!"This clip seems awfully relevant for some reason.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-38864282378763661012007-03-14T13:30:00.000-04:002007-03-14T14:25:24.731-04:00

With Viacom's lawsuit against YouTube filed yesterday, plenty of people chimed in to discuss the case.With the announcement of the lawsuit, GoogleWatch wonders why more people aren't "running around like Mark Cuban with his head cut off." On a more serious note, GoogleWatch offers 18 reasons why YouTube is guilty as charged, largely summarizing Viacom's complaint. Among the reasons:1. YouTube's

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-48554409092587990812007-03-13T14:39:00.000-04:002007-03-13T14:41:45.475-04:00

Found the Viacom v YouTube complaint, courtesy of the NYT. I will be going through and parsing it and will hopefully have more on it later on today.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-10843704663411647832007-03-13T10:17:00.000-04:002007-03-13T10:34:19.478-04:00

Viacom has finally decided to go after YouTube, filing a lawsuit today that claims "massive copyright infringement" and seeks $1 billion in damages for an alleged 160,000 unauthorized clips that have been viewed 1.5 billion times. Viacom has also filed for an injunction, meaning that it is seeking to shut down YouTube until it complies with copyright law, though the scope of the injunction is

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-49680094157118378592007-03-10T22:36:00.000-05:002007-03-10T22:52:32.647-05:00

The NYT's has a look at efforts to digitize the Library of Congress and other collections, whose "material that is not digitized risks being neglected as it would not have been in the past, virtually lost to the great majority of potential users." As has become the frequent case, the NYT also has a great graphic on this.For one thing, costs are prohibitive. Scanning alone on smaller items ranges

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-70371190161455931362007-03-08T16:20:00.000-05:002007-03-09T10:41:28.772-05:00

Yesterday, Judge Douglas Woodlock of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts dismissed the patent infringement claim by Skyline Software Systems against Keyhole, a digital mapping company that Google bought in 2004 to help create Google Earth. The judge didn't address the question of whether Skyline's patents were valid in the first place, leaving the parties until April 20 to

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-57214270567020266442007-03-06T12:59:00.000-05:002007-03-06T13:11:16.849-05:00

In January, Fox sent subpoenas and takedown notices to YouTube, demanding that yet to be aired episodes of '24' be taken down and that the users names be released to them. Absent compliance with their request, Fox argued that it would be irreparably harmed. Now it turns out that Fox won't be suing the uploaders after all, leaving the rest of us wondering whether Fox was really harmed at all by

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-17833124442365266572007-03-06T02:10:00.000-05:002007-03-06T03:50:35.066-05:00

Thomas Rubin, associate counsel at Microsoft, criticized Google for "mak[ing] money solely on the backs of other people’s content... raking in billions through advertising revenue and I.P.O.s." What the NYT misses in reporting on this is that Rubin's statement comes from a report before the American Association of Publishers, one of the groups suing Google over Google Book Search, in the wake of

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-67400334389776966692007-02-27T14:41:00.000-05:002007-02-27T14:43:52.449-05:00

More on Viacom's spate of takedown notices that removed seemingly legitimate content from YouTube, via Business Week.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-32479578335080828352007-02-22T19:52:00.000-05:002007-02-22T20:33:19.080-05:00

William Patry has an interesting spin on the recent Philip Morris decision that found it improper to hold the cigarrette maker liable for general damages for injuries to all smokers as a violation of due process. In discussing what the decision means for damages, Patry refers to the mp3.com case, which resulted in huge damages, to say that this limiting of damages could easily be applied to

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-11220549154781770102007-02-15T18:09:00.000-05:002007-02-15T19:36:38.399-05:00

The big news for the past week has been the very public spat between Viacom and Google. Probably still upset that it didn't get offered a sweet deal as part of the GooTube deal, Viacom appears to have given up on working out an arrangement with Google and has opted to start its own video site, while also sending YouTube over 100,000 DMCA takedown notices. That's the short version at least, but

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-68205973015710705202007-02-09T01:09:00.000-05:002007-01-28T23:20:36.515-05:00

Ars reports that Amazon has been given a patent for showing you digital pages of meatspace books you have already bought. Read the patent, #7,174,054, for yourself. An invention must be not obvious to a PHOSITA to be eligible for patent protection, so this story only adds to the ongoing debate over whether a new standard for obviousness is needed to prevent patents like this. Certainly,

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-90016783463085529752007-01-28T21:54:00.000-05:002007-01-28T23:20:36.752-05:00

Question of the Month:Can food from cloned animals be called organic?Many clone-opposing readers of the rule are quick to note, for example, its clear statement that genetically engineered organisms cannot be organic. Surely, these opponents conclude, no animal is more engineered than a clone, which is conceived in a laboratory dish and has just one biological parent.But the biotechnology

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-66724229107664021882007-01-25T15:52:00.000-05:002007-01-25T16:02:12.762-05:00

Google announced that it will keep both its video service and YouTube. While Google Video will focus on "search for the world's online video content, irrespective of where it may be hosted," YouTube will continue to be run as a video hosting site. Techdirt calls this an "elegant solution" because it focuses on the strengths of each site, which is far better than Google milking YouTube for all

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-10306446741500613622007-01-25T14:08:00.000-05:002007-01-25T15:32:14.726-05:00

It appears that FOX has served YouTube with a subpoena, demanding the identity of a user who has uploaded full-length episodes of the "Simpsons" and yet-to-be aired episodes of "24." No word yet as to whether YouTube will comply. Though there is no way to justify posting something online before its release date, this really is more of an internal problem for Fox than something YouTube should

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-60367622731678407232007-01-25T13:33:00.000-05:002007-01-25T13:48:47.298-05:00

Haven't seen this before. In the Terms of Service governing email submissions to a popular site, it says that:You must include a signed copy (with your signature and the signature of your parent/ legal guardian) of this Submission Rules and Requirements agreement (the “Agreement”) with any Submission.Not only do I have to check the "I accept" box, but have to waste a stamp too! Satire, lack of

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-74874561026120379062007-01-21T12:20:00.000-05:002007-01-21T12:24:54.351-05:00

The Times Online recaps Google's Unbound conference held earlier this week, recounts the Book Search lawsuit, and ponders the future of the book.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-20917076578641598532007-01-20T12:54:00.000-05:002007-01-20T14:33:55.477-05:00

The International Federation of the Phonographic Industry (IFPI), a global music trade group akin to the RIAA, released its Digital Music Report for 2007 this past Wednesday. It makes the usual points: digital music is a growing business, the music industry is making headway in the War on Piracy, record companies are working to give consumers what they want (ha!), and next year will be better

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1169161368893143472007-01-18T17:56:00.000-05:002007-01-18T18:03:26.760-05:00

Looks like Rescuecom, which had its trademark suit against Google for selling ads to competitors that pop up when users search for Rescuecom dismissed as not being a trademark violation, is appealing to the Second Circuit.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1168919005429207782007-01-15T22:42:00.000-05:002007-01-15T22:43:25.486-05:00

Ars posts an article about DRM, arguing that Big Content's pursuit of it has nothing to do with piracy:The basic point is that access control technologies are becoming more and more refined. To create new, desirable product markets (e.g., movies for portable digital devices), the studios have turned to DRM (and the law) to create the scarcity (illegality of ripping DVDs) needed to both create the

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1166862735297080672006-12-23T03:31:00.000-05:002006-12-23T03:59:37.186-05:00

Bad case out of Texas regarding linking and copyright liability. The website Supercrosslive.com linked to "audio webcasts" of supercross events hosted on SFX Motor Sport's website, was accordingly accused of copyright infringement, and has been preliminarily enjoined from providing such links until the case is settled or resolved at trial. It's a troublesome decision because it essentially

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1166845604956821572006-12-22T22:46:00.000-05:002006-12-22T22:46:45.020-05:00

Just finished with finals today, which is why I've been skimping on new posts.  To fill your need for information, here's a video report on Tur v. YouTube by Ron, a lawyer from DC.  It's a pretty good run down of the case and relevant law.  To boot, it offers a novel way for everyone to try and influence the court that will eventually decide the case.  Anyone who will be directly affected by a

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1166576196342022552006-12-19T19:57:00.000-05:002006-12-19T19:56:36.476-05:00

A new tool will scan the web for copyright violations. 

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1166558587762572982006-12-19T15:02:00.000-05:002006-12-20T10:45:48.416-05:00

This isn't Google related, but I thought it was a neat story from Techdirt.Rogers Cadenhead, the owner of Wargames.com since 1998, has been approached by a lawyer from MGM claiming that his domain name infringes on the trademark to the 1983 classic WarGames. It's a classic example of domain dispute over a trademarked term. The problem with cases like these is that they get decided by

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1166055351681330812006-12-13T19:15:00.000-05:002006-12-13T19:15:52.390-05:00

Slashdot and Techdirt link to yet another story on someone dissatisfied with their Google PageRank, however, this time its a blogger being harassed by an online business over the blogs higher ranking.  The blogger, Dean from deanhunt.com, hasn't divulged the identity of the business at issue, but he has posted their email conversations wherein the company asks that Dean contact Google to have his

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1165864162578127792006-12-11T14:00:00.000-05:002006-12-11T14:09:22.580-05:00

I'd like to apologize for my absence lately. Took a couple days off around Thanksgiving, only to have my laptop die on me. By the way, anyone with an IBM T30 laptop with an ATI 7200 video card better be aware that there's something defective with the combination of the motherboard and video card. There are several other people who have had problems with the video card zonking out on them,

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1165863606043520962006-12-11T13:56:00.000-05:002006-12-11T14:00:06.076-05:00

Senator McCain has decided to stir up new Internet legislation aimed at protecting children from molesters and other devious elements of society with nefarious intentions. On Wednesday, McCain introduced the “Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act” (alas, no snappy acronym, but it was suggested that SOEOCA is Navaho for “beware of a warrior from the desert”), which will require most

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1163653126949890622006-11-15T23:17:00.000-05:002006-11-15T23:58:48.656-05:00

Lawrence Lessig has been discussing Kahle v. Gonzales, here and here and follow the case here, a case brought on behalf of Brewster Kahle, founder of the Internet Archive (home of the Wayback Machine), challenging the constitutionality of the current copyright regime. Essentially, the case argues that the 1976 Copyright Act ushered in a fundamental change to copyright by creating automatic

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1163649533935826492006-11-15T22:54:00.000-05:002006-11-15T22:58:53.946-05:00

There's a fascinating article on Slate laying out a hypothetical situation where the recent ban on online gambling could lead to trouble with the WTO and open the door for countries to be well within their rights to ignore intellectual property treaties with the United States.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1163631107263608092006-11-15T13:53:00.000-05:002006-11-15T17:51:47.416-05:00

Mark Cuban has been all over the various story lines behind YouTube, first mentioning their $500 million copyright infringement slushfund (which turns out to be only about $200 million) and now posting Robert Tur's motion for summary judgment. After all his criticism of YouTube, it does seem like a major coincidence that Cuban is contemplating the purchase of Tur's Los Angeles News Service.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1163051234049355252006-11-09T00:16:00.000-05:002006-11-09T00:47:14.730-05:00

Google disclosed in its quarterly SEC filing that it's the subject of a video copyright lawsuit. There are no other details, and as TechDirt points out, the lawsuit could very well be the one filed this summer by Robert Tur against YouTube (more at EFF) over his footage of trucker Reginald Denny getting domed with a brick during the Rodney King riots of 1992 appearing on the site. The

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1163048302444828012006-11-08T20:37:00.000-05:002006-11-08T23:58:22.563-05:00

Saw a post on Google Blogoscoped that has me concerned. It appears that Google has cut off a Blogger user's AdSense account because his blog, Google Operating System, has the word "Google" in its url: googlesystem.blogspot.com. Despite the blog's efforts to clear up any confusion, Google is maintaining its stance, according to its Guidelines for Third Party Use of Google Brand Features, that

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1163034778837286182006-11-08T20:08:00.000-05:002006-11-08T20:13:06.823-05:00

Google accidentally sends Kama Sutra worm in email to Google Video group.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1162851083397060682006-11-06T17:10:00.000-05:002007-03-18T01:10:34.807-04:00

As a hockey fan, I am used to being considered a fringe sports fan. On ESPN, the sport falls somewhere between IRL and Soccer in importance, and it's coverage elsewhere is lamentable. Any serious hockey fan has to turn to Canadian sources (eg. TSN where hockey leads the list of sports) for any in-depth coverage. Why, the only TV deal the NHL has is a $200 million three-year deal with OLN/

Nicknoreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1162836638857093902006-11-06T13:03:00.000-05:002006-11-06T13:10:39.563-05:00

NYT runs an article a little more attuned to the Google Bomb phenomenom than their last one a few days ago.  It's amusing to see the paper try to follow Google's approved uses of its name when it says right right at the start that "some Web gurus have suggested [it's] perhaps better called a link bomb, in that it affects most search engines."  Gurus?  Anyway, the article actually does give a good

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1162627649251163762006-11-04T03:06:00.000-05:002006-11-06T17:45:38.360-05:00

The lawsuit being brought by Jeff Diehl and the EFF against Michael Crooks is big news since it involves the misuse of everybody's favorite piece of copyright legislation, the DMCA. It's easy to dislike the DMCA for how it can be used to stifle speech and creativity, but this post is an offering to shine some light on the nasty bits of DMCA Section 512 and to show everyone that they're really

Nicknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1162421895298036182006-11-01T17:51:00.000-05:002006-11-01T17:58:15.313-05:00

The Official Google Blog has more clarification on the proper use of Google as a verb. Google as a noun is good. Google as a verb is ok only if you're talking about Google. Google as a verb when talking about using Yahoo! is right out.I liked the Google's old examples of proper use better.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1162418646849327592006-11-01T16:56:00.000-05:002006-11-01T17:14:22.513-05:00

It's no secret that Google's success relies heavily on new content being added to the Internet, because it makes search that much more important, so it's not surprising to hear that Google bought JotSpot, a Wiki creation service. Can't wait to try it out once registration for the site reopens. If you're a skeptic, you could view this as merely another boost to Google's brand visibility as it

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1162279888959884642006-10-31T02:10:00.000-05:002006-11-18T10:56:53.176-05:00

Check this out. The Spanish blog Derecho y Nuevas Tecnologias ("Straight and New Technologies" according to Babel Fish, but it's really "Law and New Technologies according to its author) has linked to my blog, putting me in the same sentence as Eric Goldman and John Battelle. That's pretty good company. Thanks Pablo!Thanks are also due to Ron Coleman of Likelihood of Confusion and Siva

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1162278244207333032006-10-31T00:47:00.000-05:002006-10-31T02:04:04.590-05:00

After Google's acquisition of YouTube was announced, word leaked out that Big Content companies like Universal were given ownership stakes in YouTube totaling $50 million. If that didn't sound sketchy enough, Mark Cuban has dug up an anonymous insider with some intimate details that makes the deal sound even worse. According to the source:Nearly $500 million of the $1.65 billion purchase price

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1162243438625365432006-10-30T15:27:00.000-05:002006-10-30T17:47:58.256-05:00

I questioned aloud the other day whether Google's new Custom Search Engine (CSE) service will make users similarly liable as oft-sued Google over its search engine. Here are some thoughts on CSE and CDA 230.The technology behind what is going on is key to any lawsuit involving the Internet, so it's important to be clear about what is happening when a person uses CSE to build their own search

Nicknoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161979125474855072006-10-27T15:57:00.000-04:002006-10-27T15:58:45.473-04:00

Hope you like. And hope no one gets confused.

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161977213136713022006-10-27T14:54:00.000-04:002006-10-27T15:28:00.396-04:00

ROTFL. President Bush uses "the Internets" to reach "the Google." While Google has sent warning letters in trying to police the use of its name to avoid genericide, Bush's use doesn't seem to run afoul of the approved uses of Google's TM since he's still using it as a proper noun rather than a verb.* But it's still funny as a grammatical error. I should try and avoid both the inference that

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161844490482669572006-10-26T01:45:00.000-04:002006-10-30T17:47:08.610-05:00

Another campaign season means more another look at how Google bombing is being used as a campaign tactic. This isn't new, as the NYT would have you believe, especially since the NYT reported on the tactic in 2004 (do they even bother to Google their own papers before writing new articles?). It brings to mind a piece on Slate by John Hiler, about blogs ruining Google, that discussed the practice

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161743997212221252006-10-24T22:39:00.000-04:002006-10-24T22:39:57.306-04:00

This looks too cool not to risk getting sued over, just like Google does, so I started my own engine: the Google Copyright Engine. I need to update my blogroll since I've just started blogging again and have more sites to add, but they will all be included in the engine. Also, Google allows users to include single pages into the engine, which seems similar to making bookmarks searchable. If

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161737902469795382006-10-24T20:58:00.000-04:002006-10-24T20:58:22.606-04:00

Google has released their Custom Search Engine, a custom search tool that allows users to create their own search engines using Google technology and which can be hosted on a user's website. Now that everyone can build their own search engine - not that they couldn't before, just that the process has been Googlicized - does that mean that we've all availed ourselves to being sued over what our

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161580077827871042006-10-23T01:07:00.000-04:002006-10-23T01:07:57.936-04:00

Thanks to the NYT for telling the world that Google gets sued a lot. From Geico to Perfect 10 to Belgian publishers to AFP to the Authors' Guild to KinderStart to Rescuecom to inheriting Robert Tur's against YouTube for posting the Rodney King video, the article neatly summarizes a veritable "best of" when it comes to Google's legal problems. Unfortunately the article is light on substance and

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161379768245701652006-10-20T17:29:00.000-04:002006-10-20T17:29:28.353-04:00

YouTube has removed nearly 30,000 videos that were flagged as infringing copyright by the Japan Society for Rights and Authors, Composers, and Publishers (JASRAC), a Japanese equivalent of the RIAA. But don't worry too much, JASRAC actually went through the trouble of identifying all those videos themselves and asked YouTube to remove them, following the opt-out policy inspired by Google and

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161372912738028292006-10-20T15:35:00.000-04:002006-10-20T15:43:57.886-04:00

A News.com op-ed rips Google over its Google News service in light of the successful lawsuit by Belgian news publishers, which even forced Google to post the ruling on its Belgium homepage (good summary of the affair by SearchEngineWatch here). The op-ed calls Google "immoral" for free-riding on the work of others and blasts the whole Web 2.0 thing.Again, there should be no problem with linking

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161314551212024022006-10-19T23:22:00.000-04:002006-10-19T23:49:13.050-04:00

In what must be assumed to be a slap in the faces of Intelligent Designers, the entire works of Charles Darwin are now available online. And searchable too. This is great news:John van Wyhe, director of the project run by Cambridge University, said the collection is so comprehensive it will help dispel the "many misconceptions and myths" about the naturalistHe told the BBC that nothing can now

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161233262425553322006-10-19T00:24:00.000-04:002006-10-19T00:49:51.640-04:00

Yesterday I posted on how Google/YouTube avoided getting sued by Universal. Well, now it seems that the answer to why not has come: Three of the four major music companies — Vivendi’s Universal Music Group, Sony and Bertelsmann’s jointly owned Sony BMG Music Entertainment, and the Warner Music Group — each quietly negotiated to take small stakes in YouTube as part of video- and music-licensing

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1161201166958694312006-10-18T15:52:00.000-04:002006-10-18T15:52:47.106-04:00

Universal announced that it is suing video sharing sites Bolt.com and Grouper (which, remember, was recently bought by Sony) for copyright infringement. The announcement comes after Google's purchase of YouTube, which Universal threatened with a similar suit weeks ago. The threat may have been a bargaining strategy - YouTube signed a licensing deal with Universal shortly before being bought by

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1157055168322086512006-08-31T16:12:00.000-04:002006-08-31T16:13:03.583-04:00

After a bit more research, there are some interesting things about Book Search's new PDF download option for public domain books. Google Blogoscoped noticed that when you download one of the PDFs, the file itself contains an introductory page that attempts to restrict the usage of the public domain book at issue. Interestingly enough, the Google Book Search Help Center does not mention any such

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1156965306746918122006-08-30T15:15:00.000-04:002006-08-30T15:15:06.990-04:00

Book Search is now offering free PDF downloads of books in the public domain. While publishers can't complain about this, since they no longer have any control over these works, it's worth remembering that the previous name, Google Print, was changed because Google said it gave people the wrong impression:Why the change? Well, one factor was all the comments we got about how excited people were

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1156352901967881382006-08-23T13:08:00.000-04:002006-08-23T13:08:22.056-04:00

Google Blogoscoped has mined the Overheard in the Office website for mentions of Google. Like with the AOL search history leak, it's always good to know what people are actually doing in real life. The following uses, as overheard in everyday life, probably aren't on Google's list of approved uses of their trademark:Boss: Do we have Google installed on our internet?IT guy: We put it on your

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1155588950481704222006-08-14T16:55:00.000-04:002006-08-14T16:55:50.590-04:00

In July, I wrote about the OED announcing that it is using "Google" as a verb is an acceptable usage of the English language. Mirriam-Webster added "google" (small g) a little later. Being included as a verb in these prestigious dictionaries marks the point at which a phrase has become ubiquitous, a moment of celebration for some. Unfortunately, it also means bad news if you've trademarked

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1155508060393891882006-08-13T18:27:00.000-04:002006-08-13T18:32:55.896-04:00

I have a small complaint about the Blogger service. One would think that Google, since it owns Blogger, would have bothered to include the term "Google" in its spell check library. It's getting kind of annoying to be using a Google product to write about Google, only to be constantly told that "Google" isn't a word and that I must have meant "googol."

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1155508037131676892006-08-13T17:38:00.000-04:002006-08-13T18:27:17.203-04:00

With Google announcing a partnership with the UC system to scan the books in its libraries this week, the WSJ offers another overview of the lawsuit and tension between Google and publishers. Here's an interesting bit I haven't heard before:Digitizing all the world's books "was an idea of Sergey and Larry's from very early on," Wojcicki says. In fact, they were supposed to be working on a small

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1154711968269605332006-08-04T12:55:00.000-04:002006-08-04T13:19:28.430-04:00

The following is part of a paper on Google Book Search that I wrote for a law school seminar. I am currently in the process of reworking it for inclusion in a larger paper that addresses a broader spectrum of Google's copyright issues including Book Search, Video, Images, News, and search results generally. It describes the development, both physically and intellectually, of serach engines and

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1154710227149975992006-08-04T12:50:00.000-04:002006-08-04T12:50:27.250-04:00

Cnet offers an overview of Google's copyright problems, covering Perfect 10, Field v. Google, and the AFP suit. There's nothing much new except for some quotes:"It's part of their absolutist approach," said Joshua Kaufman, an attorney representing Agence France-Presse in the wire service's copyright dispute with Google. "I think they're afraid that if they give an inch, it becomes a slippery

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1154633859753429982006-08-03T15:37:00.000-04:002006-08-03T15:37:39.843-04:00

The WSJ highlights a deal between Google and the AP, but details are sketchy because the companies have signed a nondisclosure agreement, so it remains to be seen how much Google is paying and for what. As such, it's unclear whether this will have any effect on AFP's lawsuit against Google for not paying for its news. Google seems to suggest that they are paying the AP for using content beyond

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1154033456540368552006-07-27T16:50:00.000-04:002006-07-27T16:52:26.143-04:00

A lawsuit filed in 2004 by the American Chemical Society claiming that Google Scholar infringed its trademark for its SciFinder Scholar service, a service quite similar to Google Scholar but which charges a fee, was settled out of court. One would think that "scholar" would qualify as a generic term and thus outside the scope of trademark protection and, given that one is free and offered by

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1152888672981504252006-07-14T10:51:00.000-04:002006-07-14T10:51:13.116-04:00

The judge overseeing the KinderStart lawsuit over PageRank has dismissed all of the company's claims against Google. KinderStart was given some hope a little while ago when the judge ruled that its antitrust claims might have some merit, but the judge decided that KinderStart was unable to state its case sufficiently, warranting the dismissal. However, the judge has also left the door open for

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1152468940080847362006-07-09T14:15:00.000-04:002006-07-09T14:15:40.153-04:00

Google Blogoscoped mentions a rumor that Google is setting up a new health info service in addition to its Co-op health page. This rumor has been bouncing around for a while and perhaps has something to do with the KinderStart lawsuit. Afterall, the judge recently ruled that KinderStart's suit against Google could proceed because of the antitrust issues raised, which makes one wonder whether

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1151951290980463132006-07-03T14:28:00.000-04:002006-07-03T14:28:11.113-04:00

One aspect of the KinderStart lawsuit against Google that seems especially sticky is the first amendment claims on which both sides rely. Google asserts that the first amendment protects its editorial decisions to rank sites as it wishes, while KinderStart argues that Google violates its first amendment right to be heard by relegating it to the rumored "sandbox." Critics suggest that since

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1151943908675561122006-07-03T12:25:00.000-04:002006-07-03T12:25:08.776-04:00

The NYT looks at Google's practice of building its own servers and infrastructure out of cheap materials. Most have heard of Google's signature approach, holding stacks of servers together with velcro, but the article highlights other advances such as a possible Google microchip and different kinds of software designed to make the most efficient use of Google's computing power. It's suspected

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23680287.post-1151855128093421642006-07-02T11:45:00.000-04:002006-07-02T11:45:28.180-04:00

Back in March, I wrote about KinderStart.com and how it was suing Google over being demoted in its search rankings (read the suit here). Now it seems that that the US District Judge handling the case is sympathetic to KinderStarts' antitrust allegations against Google. KinderStart claims that it is a search engine and, as such, that Google engages in anticompetitive behavior when it dropped

Nicknoreply@blogger.com0