In 1990, Bavarian actor Walter Sedlmayr was brutally murdered. Two of his business associates were convicted, imprisoned for the crime, and recently paroled. Who killed Sedlmayr? Its a matter of public record, but if one of the men and his German law firm gets their way, Wikipedia (and EFF) will not be allowed to tell you.
I am thrilled to post shows #100 and 101 at Hearsay Culture [where this post is cross-posted]. After over three years of shows, a few thank yous are appropriate.
Two recent articles with competing views of the fate of Hollywood content producers caught my attention. The first, by CNET’s Greg Sandoval, reiterates long-standing predictions that for current industry giants the Internet spells doom. “[T]he end is coming,” Sandoval concludes, “for DVDs, traditional movie rentals and yes, much of your cable money…..”
The second, from New York Times reporter Bill Carter, reported surprising results from a recent change by ratings agency Nielsen. In determining whether consumers are watching commercials and, therefore, what “rating” to assign a broadcast program, Nielsen now includes DVR views within three days of airing if commercials aren’t skipped.
After years of litigation based on spurious allegations of copyright infringement, BT was vindicated again this week when the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the case on summary judgment and the award of $175,000 in attorneys' fees to BT.
An article in Sunday's New York Times by Chris Nicholson brings home an important lesson about digital life under The Law of Disruption. When social contracts are formed, the medium is often the message.
The story involves the Second Life virtual environment. A couple met and married online through the site, and with virtual currency called Lindens, purchased and furnished an island retreat. After the husband died in real life, the wife could not continue to make maintenance payments on the island. Linden Labs, which runs Second Life, erased all of their shared digital possessions.
If you can’t beat ‘em, sue ‘em.
Earlier this week, Nokia filed suit in the U.S. to force Apple to pay royalties on Nokia patents involving cell phone technology, patents the company claims Apple is infringing with its iPhone.
As I write in The Laws of Disruption, for better or for worse (mostly for worse) litigation has become a strategic tool in the strategy arsenal of companies trying to slow down, distract, or simply stop competitors who are eating into their market share. Litigation can be a relatively inexpensive way to put a thumb on the scales of competition. (Emphasis on “relatively.”)
More at: http://larrydownes.com/nokia-v-iphone-business-as-usual-alas/
My analysis of the FCC’s proposed neutrality rules appears this morning on CNET.
No surprise, I think the FCC’s plan is a bad idea, and I think, more to the point, that the FCC is the wrong organization to be “saving” the open Internet. Among other crimes, as the Electronic Frontier Foundation points out, the FCC is the same regulator who has ramped up the penalties and frequency of fines for “indecent” content over the airwaves.
The FCC is also the organization that has tried repeatedly to push through, at the behest of the media industries, the notorious “broadcast flag,” which would force electronics and software companies to limit the legal use of broadcast content.
For more, see http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10385865-94.html?tag=mncol
Great article on my Texas Instruments dispute in the IEEE Spectrum magazine, with a picture of one of my clients: For Texas Instruments, Calculator Hackers Don't Add Up.
I'm moderating an upcoming panel on law and robotics, co-sponsored by the Arthur and Toni Rembe Rock Center for Corporate Governance and the Stanford Program in Law Science and Technology's Center for Computers and Law (CodeX). Details below. Register here.
November 12, 2009 from 5:30 pm - 8:00 pm
Stanford Law School, Room 190
5:30 p.m.- 6:30 p.m. Reception
6:30 p.m. - 7:45 p.m. Panel
Once relegated to factories and fiction, robots are rapidly entering the mainstream. Advances in artificial intelligence translate into ever-broadening functionality and autonomy. Recent years have seen an explosion in the use of robotics in warfare, medicine, and exploration. Industry analysts and UN statistics predict equally significant growth in the market for personal or service robotics over the next few years. What unique legal challenges will the widespread availability of sophisticated robots pose? Three panelists with deep and varied expertise discuss the present, near future, and far future of robotics and the law.
Julia Angwin’s column in The Wall Street Journal argues that identity theft is nothing but a “fear campaign.”
Not exactly.
I also have some strong words about the overuse and abuse of the term “identity theft” in The Laws of Disruption, and have written elsewhere in this blog on the subject. But I don’t think the problem is, as Angwin writes, merely a linguistic construct “designed to get us to buy expensive services that we don’t need.”
For more, see: http://larrydownes.com/identity-theft-not-dead-yet/
Securing Privacy in the Internet Age
Edited by Anupam Chander, Lauren Gelman, and Margaret Jane Radin.
CIS welcomes your input! We have set up a wiki to facilitate collaboration and planning. You can reach the CIS wiki by clicking here.
Non-resident fellow Dr. Elizabeth Townsend-Gard is an Associate Professor of Law at Tulane University Law School. With the help of her students, Elizabeth has developed the "Durationator," an online tool and accompanying study that tracks copyright duration in the U.S. and abroad. A beta version is expected to be released in January 2009. Their progress can be followed on her blog.
Cyberlaw Clinic archive.