Home Copyright


U.S. Government Attempts to Terminate ‘Rogue Websites’

U.S. Government Attempts to Terminate ‘Rogue Websites’

A new anti-piracy legislation was placed before the United States House of Representatives this week to deploy copyright law for the removal of ‘Rogue Websites’—domains who are alleged of infringing on other site’s intellectual property rights. 
Submitted on Wednesday, the Stop Online Piracy Act will be officially reviewed by the House Judiciary Committee on November 16th of this year. If approved, the legislation will enable organizations and individuals claiming copyright, to effectively impede any website they suspect of infringing their rights. 
To block a suspected infringer, the “copied” party would, under the new law, simply file complaints with advertisers, search engines, internet service providers and payment services, who would in turn, terminate doing business with the suspected site—a court ruling would not be necessary. 
Lawmakers behind the bill claim it would prevent online pirates and producers of counterfeit goods from taking advantage of the reputability and hard work of legitimate domains or companies. 
The bill’s mechanism to prevent digital thievery is being questioned by a number of tech companies and legislators, who feel the Act has the potential to egregiously violate a number of American rights. 

United States Government Pondering Changes to Copyright Laws

United States Government Pondering Changes to Copyright Laws

The United States Copyright Office quietly announced its priorities for 2012, which ironically—given the perfunctory reception—could bring powerful changes to the nation’s intellectual property laws. The priorities range from the way websites and blogs register perpetually-changing material for copyrights to the establishment of a new small claims circuit. If you feel your rights were violated want to learn more about copyright contact a copyright lawyer.

The significances outlined by the Copyright Office stem from the much-cogitated controversies surrounding Google’s effort to digitize libraries to disputes between cable carriers and broadcasters regarding transmission of T.V. signals. 

The following list represents a couple of highlights from the Copyright Office’s announcement:

• The Copyright Office is conducting a study concerning the development of alternative means for resolving copyright infringement claims when such issues involve limited amounts of monetary compensation. 

• The Copyright Office announced a new study regarding the registration of content disseminated online. The study will evaluate the registration process for websites that contain a number of contributors who constantly update the site with fresh content.


Copyright Forms

Copyright Forms


Two Members of the ‘IMAGiNE’ Group Sentenced

Two Members of the ‘IMAGiNE’ Group Sentenced

On November 2, 2012, Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced that Willie Lambert of Pittston, PA, and Sean M Lovelady of Pomona, California were sentenced to prison for their participation in an online piracy group.  The group is called “IMAGiNE.”  

Lambert received 30 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and he was ordered to pay $449,514 in restitution.  Lovelady received 23 months in prison and three years of supervised release, and he was ordered to pay $7,500 in restitution.  Each of the men pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement.  

The IMAGiNE Group was a piracy ring that released copies of movies on the internet that were only in theatres.  

Court documents show that Lambert and Lovelady admitted to entering movies theaters with receivers and recording equipment in order to record the audio sounds of the movies—called “capping.”  After the two men received the audio content, they edited and synchronized the audio content with video that was illegally obtained as well.  The edited content was then submitted to the IMAGiNE Group and shared on the file sharing network.  

Two other co-defendants pleaded guilty to one count of conspiring to commit criminal copyright infringement.  Jeramiah B. Perkins is scheduled for sentencing on January 3, 2013, and Gregory Cherwonik is scheduled for sentencing on November 29, 2012.  

The investigation was led by the ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) through the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center located in Washington, D.C.  The IPR Center is one of the most important tools used by the federal government to target and fight criminal counterfeiting and piracy.  21 different agencies participate in the IPR Center.  

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert J. Krask for the Eastern District of Virginia Senior Counsel John H. Zacharia with the Justice Department are in charge of prosecution.  

Source: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Legal Aspects of File Sharing

Legal Aspects of File Sharing


Legal Aspects of File Sharing

File sharing is not specifically illegal in the United States, but transmitting copyrighted material is illegal, and a number of lawsuits have been brought forth since file sharing began on the internet.  Some of the first cases involved lawsuits connected with the file-sharing network Napster, and the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has brought thousands of lawsuits against individuals along with other petitioners in the United States. 

Examples of Online Copyright Infringement

The following types of online copyright infringement are often investigated and prosecuted:

·         putting MP3 files on the internet within a file-sharing network so other people can download the music

·         downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted audio and video content, even if you don’t offer content to other users

·         joining a file-sharing network that is not authorized to distribute or make copies of music or video content

·         burning copyrighted CDs for your friends and peers

·         email copies of music or videos to people you know

How does the Government Prove Liability in Copyright Infringement?

According to the Federal Trade Commission, the government needs to “prove that a defendant infringed a copyright willingly and for the purpose of commercial advantage or personal financial gain.”  These legal aspects of file sharing apply to the creators of a file-sharing network and individuals who download and share content. 

Even if the creators of the file-sharing network claim “willful blindness” about the content being distributed on their website, they are still liable for copyright infringement because they are profiting from the website and know that content is being shared.  Individuals are liable because they achieve personal financial gain by saving money after downloading the free, copyrighted content. 

Several operations have been launched by the federal government to impose the legal aspects of file sharing and bring individuals and websites that share files to justice.  One of the biggest operations was launched by the U.S. Department of Justice called “Operation Digital Gridlock.”  The operation resulted in the seizure of over 40 terabytes o pirated content. 

Liability of Distributing Pornography

File-sharing networks can result in a person unintentionally distributing pornography and even child pornography files.  The majority of file-sharing software is set up to automatically redistribute and make content available that was downloaded by a user.  So, if an individual accidentally downloads a pornographic file, these files can be redistributed without their knowledge and they are liable for distributing pornography.  Several cases were brought forth against affected defendants and resulted in heavy fines. 

Industry Self-Regulation

As legal aspects of file sharing have caused multiple lawsuits to occur, file sharing is still occurring at an unprecedented pace.  So, many internet providers have decided to start issue their own warnings.  In October and November of 2012, major internet providers have begun to issue warnings before users download pirated content.  There are a series of warnings, and prosecution is even threatened if downloading continues.  The major internet providers can even slow down internet connections if the user refuses to stop downloading pirated material. 

Source: https://www.ftc.gov/reports/p2p05/050623p2prpt.pdf 


Web Scraping

Web Scraping


What is Web Scraping?

Web scraping is sometimes called data harvesting or site scraping and is a technique to retrieve data from a website or multiple websites.  Scraping can occur by manually copying material from a website, but most scraping is conducted by complex software that can automatically access and retrieve data from websites. 

There is a surprisingly few amount of lawsuits for the amount of scraping that occurs on the internet because the data retrieval borders between legal and illegal activity. 

Examples of Web Scraping

Scraping comes in many different forms, but the examples listed below are common forms of scraping:

·         obtaining emails from websites in order to launch spam emails

·         using user information from social networking websites

·         obtaining price and product information from a website to decrease their sales

·         plagiarizing information from articles, blog posts, and published research

·         relisting a website’s listings like job postings, phone listings, etc

Example of Lawsuit Involving Web Scraping

Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service Company

Rural Telephone Service Company is a public service that provides telephone service to communities in the northwest part of Kansas.  The company publishes a telephone directory that has white and yellow pages.  Feist Publications, Inc. is a company that publishes similar information for a larger range of people.

Rural refused to license its white pages to Feist, so Feist decided to extract the listing from Rural’s directory anyway.  Feist altered many of these listing, but some were left the same, so Rural sued Feist for copyright infringement. 

The Supreme Court ruled that the names, towns, and telephone numbers used by Feist were not originally produced by Rural.  Therefore, the public information was not protected under copyright law.  The Court ruled that the material in Rural’s white pages lacked the minimum amount of material needed for copyright protection because they failed to arrange and coordinate the material in an original way. 

Numerous petitioners have sued for web scraping and won, however.  Companies like American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, eBay, Facebook, and more have taken action against websites that harvested their data. 

Ways to Prevent Web Scraping

The first and most obvious was to stop scraping is to threaten legal action unless the company or website ceases and desists the publication of the information.  The following measures can help stop and prevent scraping from computer programs:

1.       Use a JavaScript calculation to make sure the person accessing the site is actually a web user

2.       Use a CAPTCHA (which requires the person to type in characters of distorted letters)

3.       Use images or flash files and provide text by using a script or style sheet

4.       Block a competitor’s IP address

5.       Install software that can detect a scraping bot

6.       Change your HTML tags along with URLS and tag names

7.       Set up fake links to fictitious content to trap the scraper

Lastly, there is a large amount of software that websites can use to detect scrapers.  If you’re concerned about the content of your website, considering looking into software that can deter scrapers.

Lady Chatterley’s Lover

Lady Chatterley’s Lover


Summary of Lady Chatterley’s Lover

The novel was written by D.H. Lawrence, and it was first published in 1928 in Florence, Italy.  The book created a huge amount of controversy in the United Kingdom, the United States, and other countries because of its sexual content, and the book was not printed in the United Kingdom until 1960.  

The plot involved the relationship between a married upper-class woman and a working-class man she came to love.  Constance, or Lady Chatterley, is married to a disabled war vet, and the emotional and physical distance between Constance and her husband cause her to start an affair with the gamekeeper, Oliver Mellors. 

Lawrence was eventually praised for his incorporation of the mind and body theme as well as class disputes throughout the novel.  Constance’s character is not satisfied with the mind alone, causing her to start a relationship with Mellors. 

Crown v. Penguin Books Ltd: The Case Against Lady Chatterley’s Lover

Publishers in the United Kingdom refused to publish the novel, so Lawrence published the first copies of the novel in Florence, Italy in 1928.  The novel was published the next year in Paris as well.  Lady Chatterley’s Lover was finally published in the United Kingdom by Penguin Books, but a lawsuit shortly followed. 

Penguin was accused of violating the Obscene Publications Act, and it could only distribute the book if acquitted of the charges.

During the trial, officials in the courtroom handed out copies of the novel and asked 12 members of the jury to read it.  The book was not allowed to exit the jury room.  The prosecution formed a large list of possible witnesses to condemn the book, but the defense had well known and powerful witnesses that argued for its merit.  Notable witnesses included E M Forster, Cecil Day-Lewis, Rebecca West, and Richard Hoggart.  John Robinson, the Bishop of Woolwich, even called the novel’s sex scenes “an act of holy communion.” 

On November 2, 1960, the jury deliberated for three hours and acquitted Penguin Books of all the charges.  Copies of the book began to sell immediately, but there were still social hostility toward the book. 

Literary Reaction: Post- Lady Chatterley’s Lover

The novel by D.H. Lawrence still remains the most controversial novels of the 20th century.  The novel’s content was debated in the United States, Australia, multiple countries in Asia, and more, but the book is considered a classic piece of literature now. 

However, public reaction to content within books is still a pressing topic.  Schools and communities still ban books because of their violent or sexual content—even though obscenity laws for published material in the United States have all but ceased to exist.  The most recent example of controversy involves E.L. James’ book Fifty Shades of Grey.  Opponents of the book have criticized the book’s content on BDSM (bondage, discipline, sadism, masochism) and sexual content.  The book, however, remains extremely popular and has sold millions of copies.

Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8066784/Lady-Chatterley-trial-50-years-on.-The-filthy-book-that-set-us-free-and-fettered-us-forever.html





What is the Jumpman (logo)?

The Jumpman (logo) is used by Nike on merchandise that promotes Michael Jordan.  The logo is most known on the Air Jordan brand of basketball shoes.  The logo appeared in 1985 and was placed on all products with the “Jordan” brand. 

Controversy over the Jumpman (logo)

On February 23, 2012, Michael Jordan issued a statement that announced he was filing a lawsuit against Qiaodan Sports Company Ltd in China.  He claimed the company used his name and number without his permission. 

The number 23 appears on a large amount of Qiadan’s merchandise, and the Jordan-like appearance has increased sales for the company over the years.  Their advertisements, sportswear, and equipment resemble the Jumpman (logo) very closely, but the company still denies that they copied the trademark

During his statement, Michael Jordon stated, “A Chinese sports company has chosen to build a Chinese business off my Chinese name without my permission.  It pains me to see someone misrepresent my identity.  He went on to say, “It is deeply disappointing to see a company build a business off my Chinese name without my permission, use the number 23 and even attempt to use the names of my children.  I am taking this action to preserve ownership of my name and my brand.” 

Qiaodan is means “little Jordan.”  The lawsuit was accepted by Qiaodan Sportswear Co in May of 2012. 

Similar cases have been brought against Chinese sporting goods companies by NBA players.  For example, Yi Jianlian filed issued a complaint with the Chinese Trademark Review and Adjudication Board and won the case and appeal in 2010.  Additionally, Yao Ming filed a case against another Chinese sporting goods company called Wuhan Yunhe after they tried to trademark a name that was associated with Yao Ming.