Blog

Riley, Aereo, and the "Arthur C. Clarke Rule"

It turns out that searching through the digital contents of a person’s mobile phone is more intrusive than rifling through an address book, wallet, or purse. Correspondingly, police may no longer perform such a search without a warrant. Privacy advocates are hailing the Supreme Court’s decision last Wednesday in Riley v. California as a victory of common sense and rationality over blind adherence to doctrine. But just a few minutes before the Riley decision appeared online, the Court handed down its ruling in ABC v. Aereo, holding that the company’s use of tens of thousands of dime-sized micro-antennas to stream broadcast television over the internet was a form of copyright infringement. The Court’s decision in Aereo has so far seen a far cooler reception than its one in Riley, with some fearing that the majority’s reasoning could potentially chill innovation.

Let’s be honest: Riley and Aereo barely have anything to do with each other. One is a Fourth Amendment case, the other is about copyright infringement. And while there is some crossover in the tech policy world, there aren’t many public defenders who run a side business litigating civil intellectual property disputes, nor are there many IP attorneys who spend their days off arguing the exclusionary rule. The only reason these two cases have so often been cited in parallel is that they were handed down within minutes of each other, and they both relate to technology. That said, what these two cases do illustrate is just how much trouble the Supreme Court, and, by extension the entire legal system, has with new technologies. And what we need to ask is why, doctrinal technicalities aside, so many see Riley as coming out the “right” way while Aereo is viewed as a “bad” result. Read more » about Riley, Aereo, and the "Arthur C. Clarke Rule"

Argentine Supreme Court To Decide Whether Intermediaries Must Monitor/Take Down Search Results

Recently, the Supreme Court of Argentina heard arguments in Rodríguez, María Belén c/ Google Inc. y Otro s/ Daños y Perjuicios. The case requires the Supreme Court to decide for the first time whether Internet intermediaries - in this case, search engines Google and Yahoo - are liable for linking to content that violates fundamental rights or infringes copyright. It will also decide whether Google Image Search’s “thumbnails” infringe copyright law.

Whose laws control your data? The implications of the Microsoft search warrant challenge

Microsoft's challenge to the US warrant for customer data that is stored in Ireland raises issues that are important for every individual who uses online products and cares about how access to their data is governed. It also has implications for all tech and telco companies that store user data across jurisdictions. This note unpacks some of these issues and calls for a more nuanced debate. Read more » about Whose laws control your data? The implications of the Microsoft search warrant challenge

European Libraries Don't Need Permission to Digitize Books in Their Collection, Says Advocate General of the ECJ

Recently, an Advocate General with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) handed down an opinion in Technische Universität Darmstadt v Eugen Ulmer KG stating that European libraries may digize individual books in their collection without permission from the rightholders. Read more » about European Libraries Don't Need Permission to Digitize Books in Their Collection, Says Advocate General of the ECJ

Hong Kong Government Introduces Copyright Bill Providing a “Safe Harbor” for OSPs for Copyright Infringement

Today, the Hong Kong Government introduced the Copyright (Amendment) Bill 2014 into the Legislative Council to revise Hong Kong’s copyright law so as to “keep pace with technological and overseas developments.” Read more » about Hong Kong Government Introduces Copyright Bill Providing a “Safe Harbor” for OSPs for Copyright Infringement

Eleventh Circuit Says No to Warrantless Cell Tracking, Calls Other Metadata Programs Into Question

Today, the Eleventh Circuit rejected the exceedingly common law enforcement practice of warrantlessly tracking suspects’ physical location using cell phone tower data. The opinion, United States v. Davis, is both welcome and overdue. Defendants who have and will be physically tracked without a warrant have new legal support to challenge that surveillance. Read more » about Eleventh Circuit Says No to Warrantless Cell Tracking, Calls Other Metadata Programs Into Question

Internet & Jurisdiction Case Collections 2012 and 2013 in Retrospect

The Internet & Jurisdiction Project launched officially the case compilations 2012 and 2013 in Retrospect. 
 
The case collections ”2012 in Retrospect“ and “2013 in Retrospect” are a compilation of 460 selected cases. They show the tension between the cross-border nature of the Internet with its transnational online spaces and the patchwork of geographically defined national jurisdictions. They provide a review of crucial dynamics to stimulate discussions and trigger research with special emphasis on intermediary liability cases. 
 

Pages

Subscribe to Stanford CIS Blog