Posts tagged Legal
Legal Analysis: How the Megaupload Defense Could Proceed
Jan 26th
There will be two battles fought simultaneously in defense of Megaupload, the cyberlocker site accused by the U.S. of hosting and publicizing illicit copyrighted material. One is in the public arena, where we can expect the defendant to portray itself as Robin Hood, not so much stealing content from the rich as repurposing it for the poor, the meek, the 99 percent. It may even get some traction in that arena, but those same tactics may not play so well to a jury. That will be a separate battle whose defense strategy may not be so populist.
With the help of technology industry attorney Richard Santalesa and a team of researchers at New York City-based Information Law Group, ReadWriteWeb has examined the possible strategies a Megaupload defense may adopt, and analyzed their chances of success.
Sponsor
The Robin Hood defense
The case for Megaupload acting on behalf of the everyday consumer, the average Joe, is already being assembled – in fact, defense attorneys could perhaps sit tight, relax, and watch the Web build their case for them.
Just after Megaupload first came under scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Dept., it pursued a business relationship of some sort with Universal Music Group. The subject was a prospective music download service called MegaBox. The indictment last week refers specifically to a November 2010 e-mail sent to one Megaupload proprietor from a UMG executive, listing the terms which MegaBox would have to meet in order for it to host music tracks copyrighted by UMG. For example, as the indictment quotes from the e-mail: “proactive fingerprint filtering to ensure that there is no infringing music content hosted on its service; proactive text filtering for pre-release titles that may not appear in fingerprint databases at an early stage; terminate the accounts of users that repeatedly infringe copyright; limit the number of possible downloads from each file; process right holder take down notices faster and more efficiently.”
The receipt of this e-mail could be cited as evidence that Megaupload was, at the very least, communicating with music industry executives about apparently legitimate business arrangements. Fast-forward to last month, when Megaupload announced it would launch MegaBox as a commercial site that would enable artists to distribute their music directly to listeners, while paying only a 10% distribution fee to Megaupload.
That started a wave of “question-mark” articles including this one from TechCrunch on Tuesday, plus this one from Digital Music News yesterday, and this one from Broadband DSLReports.com early this morning. Could the Justice Dept. have been serving as the stooge, the errand boy, for the music industry, stopping a competitive service from coming into being in revenge for the anti-SOPA demonstrations, question-mark? We’re just saying, we’re only the messenger. (We present both the facts and the innuendo, and let you sort them out as a public service.)
Missing amid all of the question-mark speculation was any recognition of the obvious connotation from this widely circulated screenshot, which features not some generally unknown, independent music artist seeking 90¢ from every dollar, but an album by The Black Eyed Peas – artists whose music is signed by, and who are promoted by, UMG. Regular RWW readers will recall UMG had successfully, if temporarily, used a DMCA petition to have YouTube take down a Megaupload promotional video featuring musical contributions by well-known artists, some of whom were UMG stars. A DMCA petition is normally used for claiming copyright violation, although the tracks these artists contributed – singing the Megaupload catch-phrase and theme tune – was not under UMG copyright.
So one potential Megaupload defense, which could be beta-tested in the public arena before generally released to a jury, is that principal representatives of the music industry were leveraging the power of the justice system for anti-competitive purposes. For a judge to uphold any jury verdict in Megaupload’s favor arising from that defense, however, some type of direct conspiracy between the music industry and the government would need to be established beyond just sticking a question mark at the end of speculation. Here is where the bubble of question-mark would would need to be pierced, and speculation would have to give way to reality.
The existence of the one e-mail cited in the Justice Dept. indictment indicates that investigators would have plenty of other Megaupload e-mails which may speak to the true intent of MegaBox, and the legitimacy – or lack thereof – of their intended business model, and their relationship with music publishers.
(Information Law Group, not unlike many smart vendors, declined comment on speculation.)
Next page: “Obviously infringing content”
How to Find Low Cost Legal Help – If You Live in Tennessee
Jan 4th
If you need a lawyer and you can’t afford one and live in Tennessee, you might want to take a gander over at this website started by the state’s Supreme Court called JusticeForAllTN.org. “The court realizes that sometimes people cannot get help from a lawyer because they cannot afford one or they decide they want to represent themselves.” That and some plain-English initiatives started by the court can go a long way towards reducing legal costs for many common activities such as divorce, mediation and parental rights.
Wait a minute. Plain English legal language? Started by a court? For free? Yes, this is for real. And the site is nicely designed and easy to use too. It is about time, and shall we say sets a new high bar for similar kinds of public information sites from their government.
Sponsor
The website, which was created by the court’s Access to Justice Commission, also has tips on self-representation, instructions on who qualifies for legal aid, and a way to locate the nearest such office. The court claims that more than a million residents of the state can’t afford a lawyer, about 20% of total cases brought before the various courts. “To our knowledge, this is the most extensive statewide site,” says Anne-Louise Wirthlin, the coordinator of the project for the court. The project prepared this short promo video:
According to this column by Gail Kerr in The Tennessean, in addition to the site, six of Nashville’s larger law firms have split up the various legal specialties and agreed to offer pro-bono legal services. Both are worthwhile efforts and I hope more states follow with similar acts in the future.
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Market Target, San Diego’s Best Ranking SEO Firm Launches Services for Legal … – San Francisco Chronicle (press release)
Dec 31st
|
Market Target, San Diego's Best Ranking SEO Firm Launches Services for Legal …
San Francisco Chronicle (press release) Market Target, the leading source for San Diego SEO Training and SEO San Diego announced the introduction of several new services including a free SEO analysis and specialized search marketing services specifically designed for law firms and other … |
View full post on SEO – Google News
Market Target, San Diego’s Best Ranking SEO Firm Launches Services for Legal … – PR Web (press release)
Dec 31st
 PR Web (press release) |
Market Target, San Diego's Best Ranking SEO Firm Launches Services for Legal …
PR Web (press release) Market Target, the leading source for San Diego SEO Training and SEO San Diego announced the introduction of several new services including a free SEO analysis and specialized search marketing services specifically designed for law firms and other … |
View full post on SEO – Google News
Next Step in Crowdfunding Growth: Make It Legal
Dec 5th
In previous months, we’ve covered here in ReadWriteWeb a new and emerging concept called crowdfunding – a way for entrepreneurs, especially apps developers, to obtain just enough funding to get off the ground, by way of a handful of collected funding sources contributing no more than $1,000 each. It’s a superb alternative for businesses as small as one person to build an app and place it in the cloud.
The problem is, it’s not officially legal. Not that there’s any enforcement against the practice at the moment; in fact, last week the House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved by a vote of 407 – 17 language that amends the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, in order to exempt crowdsourced funds from having to clear legal hurdles from every state from which a member contributes funding.
Sponsor
But a last-ditch effort to rile up some opposition to the Senate version of the bill, perhaps from Senate Democrats, is being put together by the North American Securities Administrators Association (NASAA). Their theory is this: Internet-based ventures are more speculative, and are thus more susceptible to carpetbagger-like shysters who could take advantage of entrepreneurs through spamming techniques.
Aren’t there plenty of banks?
In testimony before the Senate Banking Committee last Thursday, NASAA President Jack Herstein argued that crowdfunding would not even be necessary if entrepreneurs could easily get the funding they needed from banks. And since such easy funding from banks is readily available, then perhaps there’s something wrong on the entrepreneurs’ end.
“If a company cannot get financing from a bank, an SBA loan, a venture capital fund, or even friends and family, it is probably because there is a significant risk that the investment is extremely risky,” Herstein told Congress. “The critical questions are: Have these sources stopped funding small businesses? If so, why?
“If the answer is that funding is not available because banks are not lending as they should, or because traditional sources of small business capital are unavailable even to well-qualified, established, or very promising small business endeavors, then this has the potential to stifle small business growth and hurt the economy,” he continued. “Therefore, Congress might consider certain steps to minimize or remediate this needless loss of productivity. On the other hand, if the answer is that traditional sources of small business capital have reviewed the particular small business applicant and determined that the risk is too great, then we should not allow that applicant to seek investment from unsophisticated, ‘mom and pop’ investors without appropriate investor protections. The typical retail investor, unlike the traditional small business financier, does not have the ability to conduct a reasonable investigation of a start-up or development-stage entity.”
The Senate bill’s key sponsor is Sen. Scott Brown (R – Mass.), who suggested last week that “mom and pop” investors should have greater opportunities to fund “mom and pop” entrepreneurs without as many as 50 state governments standing in the way, arguing over jurisdiction.
“At a time when technology and social networks are shaping our daily lives and driving our economy to new frontiers, the small business and start-up communities are stuck with investor regulations that predate the first computer,” stated Sen. Brown. “With these fossil-like rules tying down our entrepreneurs, it’s no wonder a lasting economic recovery has been so hard to achieve. This bipartisan jobs bill seeks to replace outdated restrictions so that small businesses have new ways to access capital and can more effectively compete in the global marketplace. It cuts the red tape that prevents small businesses from connecting with investors and, while retaining important investor protections, opens the door for more Americans to invest in new companies and their cutting edge ideas. If we pass this bill, opportunities to invest in the next Facebook or Google won’t be limited to the most affluent Americans.”
It’s always sunny in Washington
Recent amendments to the Senate language could improve the chances for the bill among some opponents, who had previously sided with Prof. John Coffee of Columbia School of Law. Last week before the same hearings in which Sen. Brown testified on behalf of the bill, Prof. Coffee suggested that passage of the bill could lead to carpetbagger chaos. He suggested a compromise approach would prevent crowdsourced funds from actively soliciting potential customers, including via the Internet, and also make certain that any party that does solicit potential investments as well as customers register themselves with federal and/or state authorities.
In an effort to make his testimony more memorable (which probably worked), Coffee added this: “Failure to adopt this approach or some similar variant would likely mean that every barroom in America could become a securities market, as some unregistered salesman, vaguely resembling Danny DeVito, could set up shop to market securities under the crowdfunding exemption. Under the current version of S. 1791, such a person could open his laptop on the bar, show slides of a half dozen companies to the bar’s patrons, and solicit sales. This will create few jobs – except for dubious unregistered salesmen – and much fraud.”
Under the amended bill, entrepreneurs could be introduced to the existence of such funds by way of so-called broker intermediaries, which may include consultants such as Sramana Mitra. Her One Million By One Million (1M/1M) initiative (not to be confused with a brokerage) has a goal of enabling one million entrepreneurs to obtain $1 million in investments annual revenue by 2020. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Brown bill would limit the total size of securities available through crowdsourced services to $1 million.
[Danny DeVito photo from ComicCon 2010 by Gage Skidmore.]
Discuss
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
Google’s Legal Woes: U.S. Government, Motorola, AT&T … Al Franken?
Sep 29th
A number of updates on Google legal and antitrust woes cropped up this week, as the Department of Interior/Microsoft case came to a close, the Google/Motorola deal received a second request, and Google filed to prevent release of proprietary infor…
View full post on Search Engine Watch – Latest
SEO Legal Services weighs in on big anti-foreclosure lawsuit – Athens NEWS
Sep 6th
|
SEO Legal Services weighs in on big anti-foreclosure lawsuit
Athens NEWS An attorney with a local legal aid agency has signed onto a "friend of the court" brief filed with the Ohio Supreme Court in a case that could have a big impact on home foreclosures in the state. The brief, in US Bank National … |
View full post on SEO – Google News
Google Buys 1000 IBM Patents as Smartphone Legal War Intensifies – International Business Times
Jul 31st
 New York Times |
Google Buys 1000 IBM Patents as Smartphone Legal War Intensifies
International Business Times Blog SEO by the Sea first reported the news. A Google spokesperson subsequently confirmed the purchase via an emailed statement. The patents Google bought span a wide range of fields that may or may not directly involve smartphones. … Google Buys IBM Patents Google acquires over 1000 IBM patents Google buys up 1029 IBM patents |
View full post on SEO – Google News
Cartoon: “Let those who worship evil’s might, beware my legal team!”
Jul 10th
If the minions of Satan ever want to seize your soul, they don’t have to trick you into signing it away in exchange for untold wealth, fame or a sneak peak at Uncharted 3: Drake’s Deception.
All they have to do is tuck a provision into the iTunes user agreement. Something like “The Licensed Application and related documentation are ‘Commercial Items’, as that term is defined at 48 C.F.R. §2.101, consisting of ‘Commercial Computer Software’ and ‘Commercial Computer Software Documentation’, as such terms are used in 48 C.F.R. §12.212 or 48 C.F.R. §227.7202, as applicable. You further agree that your immortal soul, and all derivative works thereof, are the sole property of the Dark Lord.”
Sponsor
But you know what? That’s how it ought to be. User agreements should be interminable, impenetrable and indecipherable, because:
- The online economy is the only one that actually seems to be working at the moment.
- The legal and business environment most online companies operate in demands that they impose outrageously sweeping conditions on users.
- If we knew just how much of our freedom, privacy and personal autonomy we were surrendering, we might opt out. And at the very least, it would depress the hell out of us.
It would be the height of irresponsibility for companies to come clean with users about just how draconian those terms of service are. They would threaten both the fragile economy and the even-more-fragile public mood.
So it’s our economic and social duty not to read too closely. Instead, scroll down as quickly as you can, click “I Agree” and enjoy that brief whiff of brimstone.
When I first wrote the caption for this cartoon, it read Repeat after me: “In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight, subject to the terms and conditions of the attached 56-page user agreement.” But a quick bit of focus testing revealed that hardly anyone got it, because so few people recognize the Green Lantern oath.
Honestly. What are they teaching in schools these days?
View full post on ReadWriteWeb
