Click the play button below to listen, or click here to subscribe to us on iTunes!

Click here to download this week’s show.

Here are the show notes for this week’s episode:

Shownotes for The Singularity Law Podcast: Episode 6 for November 4, 2008

Our Panel for Today:

• Prof. Michael Scott of The Singularity Law Blog
• Josh Kagan of The Josh Kagan Blog

DMCA’s 10th Anniversary: Where Do We Go From Here?

• EFF: “Unintended Consequences: Ten Years Under the DMCA”

The Google Book Search Settlement

• Michael Scott: “Google Stares Down Book Industry: Publishers Blink, Google Book Search Wins”
• EFF: “Google Book Search Settlement: A Reader’s Guide”
• EFF: “Google Reaches Settlement With Authors and Publishers Over Google Book Search”
• Google Watch (eWeek): “Google Gets Great Deal in Book Search Settlement”
• Authors Guild: “$125 Million Settlement in Authors Guild v. Google”
• Text of Settlement Agreement
• Class Notice

Regulating Violent Video Games

• Josh Kagan: “Violent Video Games Go (Back) to Court”

Final Thoughts

• Southwestern’s Summer Abroad Program on International Information Technology Law in London
• Lawrence Lessig: “Enormously Important News from the Free Software Foundation”

Click the play button below to listen, or click here to subscribe to us on iTunes!

Click here to download this week’s show.

Here are the show notes for this week’s episode:

Shownotes for The Singularity Law Podcast: Episode 5 for October 27, 2008

Our Panel for Today:

• Josh Kagan, author of The Josh Kagan Blog
• Prof. Michael Scott of The Singularity Law Blog

Search Engine Caches Covered by Implied Licenses: Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc.

• Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74512 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 26, 2008).
• Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., et al., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
• Perfect 10 v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.32 701 (9th Cir 2007).
• Kelly v. Arriba Soft Corp., 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir 2003).
• S.O.S., Inc. v. Payday, Inc., 886 F.2d 1081 (9th Cir. 1989).
• MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, Inc., 991 F.2d 511 (9th Cir. 1993).
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Tickets.com, U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1344 (C.D. Cal 2000). This is an unpublished decision.
• Ticketmaster Corp. v. Microsoft Corp., Case No. 97-3055 DDP (C.D. Cal., filed Apr. 28, 1997).
• Josh Kagan: Is a Search Engine Cache a Copy? Revisiting Kelly v. Arriba Soft through Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc.
• Eric Goldman: Search Engine “Cache” Function Covered by Implied License–Parker v. Yahoo.
• Jeff Neuburger: Challenge to Search Engine Caching Dismissed on Most (But Not All) Grounds.

eBay Libel and the Danger of Libel Tourism

• Eric Krangel, writing for Silicon Valley Insider: eBay Business Sues Buyer For Leaving Bad Feedback.

Apple Drops the iPhone NDA for Released Applications

• Robert Palmer, writing for The Unofficial Apple Weblog: iPhone NDA dropped, developers rejoice.
• Josh Kagan’s Recommended Reading: The Future of the Internet–And How to Stop It by Jonathan Zittrain.

Practical Corner: The Dangers of Screening Employees via Social Networking Sites

• William-Arthur Haynes, writing for The San Jose Business Journal: Screening via social media sites may leave employers exposed.

Final Thoughts: Murder in Cyberspace!

• Mari Yamaguchi, writing for the Associated Press: Japanese Woman Jailed After “Killing” Virtual Husband.

This recording is an informational resource only. It is not designed to offer legal advice.

The job of a search engine is to organize information on the Web and present that information to users in a way that is meaningful and skimmable. Modern search engines like Google and Yahoo! work by scouring Web sites for information and then indexing the contents of each page in a database from which it can draw information to respond to queries. This process involves creating a cache, which is a copy of the text or other content of each Web page added to the index.

It’s certainly not a new story to hear about a copyright owner complaining about this cache. Perfect 10 litigated the hell out of this issue¹ two years ago when they demanded that a court enjoin Google from creating “thumbnail” (small low-resolution) images for its Google Image Search. Perfect 10 prevailed in their initial action but then lost on appeal when the 9th Circuit found that Google’s fair use defense trumped Perfect 10’s infringement claim. This appellate decision followed the tradition of Kelly v. Arriba Soft,² an earlier case which established that the use of thumbnail images on a search engine is a fair use.

The Kelly decision gave us a doctrine that I support, even though I have to admit I’m not entirely comfortable with it. It’s not hard to see why the Ninth Circuit found that a cached thumbnail image is a fair use. The four-pronged fair use test in § 107 of the Copyright Act weighed heavily in favor of Arriba Soft, with the all-important fourth prong–the effect of the use upon the potential market for the original–solidly on the search engine’s side because, if anything, a low-quality thumbnail preview will guide consumers to the original copyrighted works.

Fair enough. This means that we need to consider whether a copy accomplishes the goals of the original, whatever those may be. Arriba Soft’s thumbnail copies didn’t, because they were low-resolution versions of Kelly’s epic photos. But what about Perfect 10’s images? Perfect 10 is a pornographic magazine. In fact, their business model includes selling small cell-phone-sized versions of their images that are similar to the thumbnail images cached by Google, Arriba Soft, and other search engines. Clearly the thumbnails can substitute for the originals of similar size. Luckily, this isn’t why Perfect 10 lost; Google prevailed largely because the Web sites supplying the source for its thumbnails were not even owned by Perfect 10. The Court found that those third-party sites might be infringing, but that was an issue that would need to be litigated independently of Google.³

But what if a copyright owner brought suit over something like those Perfect 10 thumbnail images without the messy third-parties involved? I don’t think that wouldn’t be a fair use under § 107. It would mean that search engines are making full copies that can completely fulfill the purpose of the source images. And when a search engine copies a Web page in its entirety and makes it available in something like the Google cache, that’s also not a fair use for the same reason. That means that search engines either needed (1) another defense or (2) a license.

This is the situation that presented in Parker v. Yahoo!, Inc.⁴ Parker claimed that Yahoo! infringed by copying text from his Web site into its cache, but the Court rejected his argument because, according to a well-known and well-accepted Internet convention, Parker could have prevented the indexing and caching of his page by using a robots.txt file. Parker even admitted that he was aware of this. The Court reasoned that, by not including a robots.txt file, Parker granted Yahoo! and other search engines an implied license for that use.

This is a great precedent for search engines. Decisions like Parker and others have gone a long way toward making me feel comfortable with Kelly. I’d still like to see the courts square off this concept in future cases. For example, one of the characteristics of the Web is that information is released it’s very hard to contain. One of the questions that survived Parker was whether the implied license is revocable. Saying “yes” to that might be like telling a newspaper that it can recall old editions of its paper at will. But judging by the trend we’re seeing in these search engine caching cases, I’m not terribly worried.

1. Perfect 10 v. Google, Inc., et al., 416 F. Supp. 2d 828 (C.D. Cal. 2006).
2. 336 F.3d 811 (9th Cir 2003).
3. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 487 F.32 701 (9th Cir 2007).
4. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74512 (E.D. Pa. Sep. 26, 2008).

Click the play button below to listen, or click here to subscribe to us on iTunes!

Click here to download this week’s show.

Here are the show notes for this week’s episode:

Shownotes for The Singularity Law Podcast: Episode 4 for October 19, 2008

Our Panel for Today:

• Josh Kagan, author of The Josh Kagan Blog
• Prof. Michael Scott of The Singularity Law Blog

DRM and Activation in Video Games

• EA’s CEO speaks to Gamasutra about DRM.
• Ars Technica: EA’s DRM, arrogance may cause gamers to skip good titles

Anonymity on the Internet

• Anonymous proxy servers: Necessary or evil?
• The growing cowardice of online anonymity
• UK/Germany: “Disclosing Encryption Keys and IP Addresses
• Men defamed on dating sites
• Josh Kagan: JuicyCampus and the Limits of Section 230
• The Internet as Conduit for Hatred & Violence
• Passports will be needed to buy mobile phones

Google and YouTube refuse to grant special DMCA treatment to McCain Campaign Videos

• McCain Campaign’s Letter to Google/YouTube
• Ars Technica: McCain/Palin campaign angry over bogus DMCA takedowns
• YouTube to McCain: No special treatment for DMCA takedowns
• Judge Rules That Content Owners Must Consider Fair Use Before Sending Takedowns | Watch the video here
• Massive Takedown of Anti-Scientology Videos on YouTube
• Bogus anti-Scientology DMCA notices sent to YouTube linked to Wikipedia user

Cybersquatters: The Hidden Trademark Danger

• Trademark Owners Must Pursue Cybersquatters or Potentially Lose Their Trademark Rights
• Southern Grouts & Mortars, Inc. v. 3M Co., 2008 WL 4346798 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 17, 2008)
• Southern Grouts and Mortars v. 3M Co., Second Amended Complaint

The Elephant is in the Library: Digital Libraries Online

• Universities launch elephantine digital library

Final Thoughts: Can a record label infringe its own copyright? One hosting provider thinks so.

The information contained in this message is under non-disclosure.

I’d love to hear one of Apple’s attorneys explain what the company’s damages would be if a developer were to breach this.

That aside, there’s a bigger problem here: this is bad business sense, no matter how you spin it.

It’s also bad for society.  In stark contrast to Apple’s approach, Google seems to be going in the opposite direction with their new “Android” platform.  The platform is wide-open, so anyone can develop almost anything for it without any limitations.  I think it’s obvious why that’s dangerous.  So, as of today the market has exactly two major choices: Apple’s closed system that’s hostile to developers, and Google’s open system that’s a malware attack just waiting to happen.

I don’t think this can last.

• Elektra v. Barker and London-Sire v. Doe:  Can merely “making available” a file on a P2P network constitute copyright infringement, or does infringement require that a plaintiff prove that the file was actually downloaded by a third party?  Maybe not.  Coincidentally, I’m currently working on a seminar paper on this very topic.
• Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommates.com, LLC.:  Roommates.com was denied § 230 immunity by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  Eric Goldman comments on his blog.
  
• Perfect 10 v. Visa:  This is a secondary liability suit in which a copyright owner unsuccessfully sought damages from a group of credit card companies that process transactions for infringers overseas.  On appeal, the plaintiff has now been joined with an amicus brief filed by the MPAA, RIAA, and others, as well as another amicus brief filed by the an organization that polices with counterfeit apparel and sneakers.  I’ll comment on this sometime soon once I’ve had an opportunity to read the briefs.
• A class-action was settled by Apple last week after some consumers complained that the flat panel displays on their Apple notebook computers don’t display as many colors as they should, leading to inferior image quality.  This week, an identical suit was filed complaining that Apple’s “iMac” line of all-in-one desktop computers have the same problem.  Apple might settle again simply to avoid negative press, but the truth here is that all flat panel displays from all manufacturers have this issue.  No flat panel display can mimic every color that the human eye can see, so they all fake it using a technique called dithering.