We are happy to announce the new 2014-2016 CIS Affiliates.
The Center for Internet and Society at Stanford Law School is a leader in the study of the law and policy around the Internet and other emerging technologies.
A healthy copyright system must balance the need to provide strong economic incentives through exclusive rights with the need to protect important public interests like free speech and expression. Fair use is foundational to that balance. It's role is to prevent copyright from stifling the creativity it is supposed to foster, and from imposing other burdens that would inhibit rather than promote the creation and spread of knowledge and learning.
The Fair Use Project (FUP) was founded in 2006 to provide legal support to a range of projects designed to clarify, and extend, the boundaries of fair use in order to enhance creative freedom and protect important public rights. It is the only organization in the country dedicated specifically to providing free and comprehensive legal representation to authors, filmmakers, artists, musicians and other content creators who face unmerited copyright claims, or other improper restrictions on their expressive interests. The FUP has litigated important cases across the country, and in the Supreme Court of the United States, and worked with scores of filmmakers and other content creators to secure the unimpeded release of their work.
We are happy to announce the new 2014-2016 CIS Affiliates.
I've been a CIS non-resident fellow (or now faculty afflilaite) now for a decade, beginning in 2004. I love being associated with CIS, and many of my closest friends have come from my connections with CIS. Whereever we've moved--Tuscon, London, Seattle, or New Orleans, CIS has always been a constant. When I was on the job market in 2006, I felt part of a crowd that year that included David Olsen and David Levine, as well as others connected to Stanford. CIS is an anchor.
As Congress winds down for the holidays, it delivers yet another lump of coal for the American people.
Contained in the 2015 Intelligence Authorization Act is a provision quietly inserted by the US Senate (just prior to voting) that authorizes the “acquisition, retention, and dissemination” of all communications data from U.S. citizens without a court order and then transferred to law enforcement for criminal investigations.
Today the Supreme Court issued a decision that will have a massive impact on patent troll litigation. In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the court ruled that patent owners can sue corporate defendants only in districts where the defendant is incorporated or has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.
In a ruling this week that will cheer up patent trolls, the Supreme Court said patent owners can lie in wait for years before suing. This will allow trolls to sit around while others independently develop and build technology. The troll can then jump out from under the bridge and demand payment for work it had nothing to do with.
These comments were prepared and submitted in response to the U.S. Copyright Office's November 8, 2016 Notice of Inquiry requesting additional public comment on the impact and effectiveness of the DMCA safe harbor provisions in Section 512 of Title 17
We filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation asking the First Circuit to affirm the district court’s reduced damages award in Sony v. Tenenbaum, a file-sharing case in which a jury originally ordered a college student to pay $675,000 for infringing copyright in 30 songs.
We filed an amicus brief in the Third Circuit on behalf of Brave New Films urging affirmance of the district court’s finding of fair use and rejection of plaintiff’s DMCA claims.
We filed an amicus brief in the Fourth Circuit in support of the Baltimore Ravens and the NFL urging the Fourth Circuit to grant rehearing or rehearing en banc, after a divided panel ruled that the Raven’s incidental use of a copyrighted logo in historical game films was not a fair use.
We defended a documentary filmmaker who was sued for copyright infringement for clips appearing in his documentary about Count Dante, an enigmatic, Chicago martial arts legend.
"In an e-mail to Ars regarding the reconsideration request, EFF lawyer Daniel Nazer pointed out that Garfum already argued this application was relevant to its case, and that was rejected by the judge.
"Daniel Nazer, the Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a high-tech civil liberties group, is amused by Reben's project — but he's not so sure it's going to help.
"The patent office looks for prior art when they review patents," he says, "but they tend to look in pretty narrow domains like published technical journals. ... Part of our work is to try and get the patent office to look more broadly.""
"“The VENUE Act would make it harder for companies to file a suit in districts that don’t have meaningful connection to the suit,” Daniel Nazer, staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Mark Cuban Chair to Eliminate Stupid Patents, told the Southeast Texas Record. “This bill is really about making sure disputes are filed somewhere that makes sense.”"
"Cooke's order binding the domain registrars, who were not parties to the case, claims authority to do so based on the All Writs Act—the same short law that's now part of the national debate over a court order issued to Apple in a high-profile terrorism case.
Golan v. Holder involves a challenge to the constitutionality of the 1994 Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), which restored copyright in foreign works previously in the public domain under U.S. copyright law. The plaintiffs in the case have challenged the URAA as contravening both the "limited times" requirement and the First Amendment. In October 2011, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case and is expected to issue a ruling before June 2012.
The Symposium, co-sponsored by Stanford’s Center for Internet and Society, took place on Friday, February 10, 2012. Scholars and noted practitioners from across the country joined STLR to discuss current and emerging issues in First Amendment law and the Internet.
"The Supreme Court sides with the big television networks and rules that Barry Diller's start-up Aereo violates existing copyright law. Christopher Sprigman, a professor at New York University School of Law, joins Lunch Break with Tanya Rivero to discuss."
"The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six trademark registrations held by the Washington Redskins. Today's ruling determined the football teams trademark name is disparaging to Native Americans and unfit for federal registration. But as Hansi Lo Wang of NPR's Code Switch team reports, the team still owns the Redskins name and can continue to use it.
HANSI LO WANG,: Let's be clear. Says intellectual property law professor Christopher Sprigman of New York University, today's ruling does not mean Washington's football team has lost its trademarks."
CIS Affiliate Scholar David Levine interviews Prof. Mark Lemley of Stanford Law School on the pending United States Supreme Court intellectual property cases.
Julie Ahrens, Director of Copyright and Fair Use was interviewed on Lost in the Stacks, a Research Library Rock’n’Roll show on WREK 91.1 FM Atlanta.
Listen to the .mp3 here. (Or right click the link to download the file.)