The Stanford Law School Center for Internet and Society (CIS) is accepting applications for an unpaid staff attorney to work with its Fair Use Project (FUP) on a range of research and litigation projects designed to promote and expand the doctrine of Fair Use.
The primary responsibility for the staff attorney will be to work on current CIS Fair Use Project litigation and with the Documentary Film Project. In addition, he/she will also be an active part of the CIS community, attending lectures and symposia, assisting with Center activities and working with students on related projects.
JD and excellent academic record; civil litigation experience (particularly in intellectual property matters) preferred; Excellent writing and analytic skills; Demonstrated ability to work in a self-directed and entrepreneurial environment.
This is an unpaid position designed mainly for attorneys who have been asked to take a paid deferment or leave of absence.
Application Instructions: Please submit your resume and (3) writing samples of your choice by email to the following address: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Schedule Type: Full Time
Application Deadline: 05/30/2009
Practice Areas: Arts, Intellectual Property, Litigation Read more » about Apply Now: CIS Staff Attorney (Unpaid)
Follow the events at today's conference, Play Machinima Law on Twitter using hashtag #PML.
Packets Vol. 6 No. 4 is online here.
Packets is a production of the Stanford Center for Internet & Society (CIS). It is written by members of the Stanford Law and Technology Association (SLATA), and edited by CIS staff, fellows and volunteer attorneys. Our purpose is to provide the legal community with a concise description of recently decided cyberlaw-related cases, and where possible, to point to the original decisions. We urge you to forward Packets wherever you please, and to take from it any content you would like. The writers on the Packets Editorial Board are: Matt Kellogg, José Mauro, Robert Lopez, Stuart Loh, Allison Pedrazzi Helfrich, and Alex Harris. Read more » about Packets Vol. 6 No. 4 Now Available
Author: Robert Lopez
MDY filed a claim for declaratory judgment that its program, Glider, did not infringe rights owned by Blizzard. Blizzard Entertainment counterclaimed, alleging two violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Blizzard also attempted to hold Michael Donnelly, the president of MDY, vicariously liable for tortuous interference and copyright infringement, previously decided at summary judgment. Glider is ‘bot’ software that can play Blizzard’s World of Warcraft (WoW) for users. Blizzard claimed that MDY violated §1201(a)(2) and §1201(b)(1) of the DMCA by trafficking in a technology designed to circumvent protective countermeasures in WoW’s code designed to protect copyrighted material. Previously at summary judgment the court held that this DMCA protection did not apply to the literal game code. The court extended this logic, holding that the protection also did not apply to non-literal elements of the game, like graphics and sound, because the user could freely access these elements. Instead the court noted that Glider circumvented a countermeasure protecting the dynamic game play experiences which even when merely ‘choreographed’ by the server, is protected by copyright. Read more » about The Digital Millennium Copyright Act Imposes Liability for Circumventing Technological Measures That Protect a Choreographed Compilation of Copyrighted Works
Author: Stuart Loh
Defendant Psystar Corporation (“Psystar”) makes and sells a line of computers which support the plaintiff Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) operating system, MacOS. Apple sued Psystar asserting copyright and other claims related to Psystar’s use of MacOS. In these proceedings, Psystar filed for leave to amend its counterclaims against Apple, dropping its previous counterclaims and asserting new ones under the copyright misuse doctrine and California unfair competition laws. Apple unsuccessfully challenged the copyright misuse counterclaims, arguing that copyright misuse could only be employed as a defense and not a counterclaim, and that in any event Psystar had failed to allege sufficient facts to ground such a claim. The court found that, at this stage in the proceedings, the cases cited did not definitively support Apple’s arguments. However, the court denied Psystar’s unfair competition counterclaims because Psystar did not adequately plead any actual or incipient violation of antitrust laws, as required to make out a claim of unfair competition. Read more » about Some Requirements for Pleading Copyright Misuse Counterclaims