Stanford Center for Internet and Society

Earthlink brief
Petitioner States and Consumer Groups
My home state of New Jersey's Brief

The Cyberlaw Clinic also assisted the AARP in writing an amicus brief in
Brand-X Internet Services v. FCC. The brief argued that by categorizing
cable broadband as a telecommunications service, the Court would force the
FCC to consider consumer concerns and preserve customer choice in the ISP
market. Such concerns include the affordable pricing, superior customer
service, diversity of options, and rapid technological innovation that have
characterized the early growth of the Internet. It argued that if cable
broadband continues to be classified as an information service, these
consumer benefits will continue to erode as cable companies use their

The American Civil Liberties Union, represented by members of the Cyberlaw Clinic, filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Supreme Court supporting open access to cable Internet lines. The case challenges an FCC determination that cable Internet service is not a "telecommunications service" presumptively subject to the sort of common carrier regulations historically applied to telephone service. The brief lays out the ways in which cable companies can control their customers' Internet experience and prevent them from switching to a viable alternative broadband provider, and argues that without meaningful consumer choice, monopoly providers of cable lines will be able to interfere with the free speech and privacy of Internet users.

Download file. For more about the case, click here.

Today we filed the appellant's opening brief in the Ninth Circuit. The brief argues that, starting with the 1976 Copyright Act, Congress changed the fundamental nature of copyright from an opt-in to opt-out system. Therefore, under the rule of Eldred v. Ashcroft, the changes are subject to First Amendment review. Download file

The Cyberlaw Clinic won a landmark free speech ruling today on behalf of two Swarthmore college students. The students had published internal memos that showed that the company knew its evoting machines did not work properly and were hiding this fact from county elections officials around the country. Diebold got the notices taken off line using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The San Francisco federal court held that copyright owners will be penalized for using the Digital to essentially get a prior restraint against speech that the owner knows is not copyright infringing.

The Cyberlaw Clinic won a landmark free speech ruling in OPG v. Diebold today. Diebold erroneously claimed that our clients, two Swarthmore college students, and the Electronic Frontier Foundation's client, a local ISP, had infringed the company's copyrights by hosting or publishing internal memos that showed that the company knew its evoting machines did not work properly and were hiding this fact from county elections officials around the country. The court held that copyright owners will be penalized for using the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to essentially get a prior restraint against speech that the owner knows is not copyright infringing.

At a hearing on February 3, 2004, the Court denied defendant's motion for fees and costs under the California Anti-SLAPP statute. In reaching it's decision, the Court refused to consider any of the affidavits submitted in connection with the motion, even though the statute clearly requires a court to do so. Cyberlaw clinic students have filed an appeal, asking the Court of Appeal to rule that Ampex's original suit is a SLAPP and that defendant is entitled to fees and costs.

September 25, 2004: Toorcon 2004, San Diego, CA, Patriot Act, Privacy and You

August 6, 2004: The Register UK: Michigan Wardrivers Await Sentencing by Kevin Poulsen