Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Over two weeks ago, FedEx improperly used the DMCA notice and take-down provisions to get the website at www.fedexfurniture.com taken offline. The company claimed trademark infringement and conversion, neither of which allow it to take advantage of the powerful remedy provided under the DMCA. Neither claim is valid, as the site only uses the word FedEx to describe the appearance of the boxes, and the company gives the boxes away for free without contractual limitations or restrictions. So our client has now put the site back up and continues to display his resourceful use of objects that companies give away for free.

Today we filed the opening brief in our appeal to the Tenth Circuit. We argue that the URAA – by restoring copyright to materials that are in the public domain – departs dramatically from the “traditional contours of copyright protection” by violating a fundamental design of the Constitution’s Progress Clause (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 8): that works passing into the public domain stay there. Download the brief here.

Today we filed the opening brief in our appeal in Golan v. Gonzeles. Download it here.

Jennifer Granick is participating today in a vibrant forum discussion at the Wall Street Journal about security, vulnerability reporting, and responsibility for breaches. You can read and participate, too, here.

The Cyberlaw Clinic is representing a man whose website showing his creative use of empty boxes to make furniture celebrates that "It's ok to be ghetto." FedEx, which gives away the boxes for free, has objected to the website and used the DMCA to get the site taken off line. The site was mentioned on memepool recently, identifying the furniture creators as "the freegans of furniture, using empty FedEx Boxes and FedEx packaging supplies to c

This is a great ruling for cable giants and a bad ruling for consumers. For the opinion, click here.

Information about the Supreme Court ruling in Grokster can be found here, including the opinion and a discussion blog.

Since 2001, the Cyberlaw Clinic has been litigating this Internet anti-SLAPP case against Ampex after they sued Scott Cargle, a former employee who posted critical messages about the company on a Yahoo! message board. Today, after two trips to the Court of Appeal, we won. Download opinion.

The winning argument was performed by third year Carl Anderson. Other students over the years who worked on the case are Jim Pastore, Melvin Priester, Erica Platt, Nicole Acton, Michael Shapiro, Chris Sant, Jason Gondor, and many, many others who helped prepare for argument, read briefs and supported their colleagues at the hearings.

Since 2001, the Cyberlaw Clinic has been litigating an Internet anti-SLAPP case against Ampex after they sued Scott Cargle, a former employee who posted critical messages about the company on a Yahoo! message board. Today, after two trips to the Court of Appeal, we won. Download opinion.

The winning argument was performed by third year Carl Anderson. Other students over the years who worked on the case are Jim Pastore, Melvin Priester, Erica Platt, Nicole Acton, Michael Shapiro, Chris Sant, Jason Gondor, and many, many others who helped prepare for argument, read briefs and supported their colleagues at the hearings.

CIS filed an amicus brief today on behalf of The First Amendment Project, Internet journalists and bloggers and others asking the court in the Apple v. Does case to treat online publishers the same rights as their colleagues who publish in more traditional formats. Download file