Way back in 2006, I accepted an invitation to enroll this blog in something called the BlogBurst Network. It described itself as “a syndication service that places blogs on top-tier online destinations.” Those destinations included several major newspapers, such as the Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Gate and the Washington Post. While I would retain ownership of my posts, I had to agree to give BlogBurst a “perpetual license to reproduce, distribute, make derivative works of” my posts.I don’t remember whether I gave it much thought. I enrolled and then pretty much forgot about it. Whether any of my posts were ever picked up through BlogBurst, I can’t say.Recently, I received notice that Demand Media had acquired BlogBurst and that I would have to take action to migrate my account. “With the power of Demand Media Studios, we are offering a new platform to help great bloggers like you be even more impactful and successful,” said this new invitation. “Whether your goals are building your online brand, driving more traffic to your blog, or positioning yourself as an industry expert, the Demand Media Blog Distribution Network can help.”
via Bloggers Beware of Demand Media’s Demand for Ownership · Robert Ambrogi’s LawSites.
Gina Kim liked the $428 handbag she bought with her employee discount at a Coach Inc. store in San Francisco for its pillowed bottom and striped, colorful strap.
But she hardly used it: It was white and she didn’t want it to stain. So she ultimately did what many other people do with luxury items they no longer want.
She put it up for sale on eBay.
That decision earned Kim a “cease and desist” letter from a law firm representing Coach that accused her of selling counterfeit goods in violation of state and federal law. The letter threatened her with up to $2 million in penalties, instructed her to sign a statement admitting wrongdoing, and demanded she pay Coach $300.
Now that letter – and the removal of her eBay ad – has prompted Kim to sue Coach for state Consumer Protection Act violations, defamation and other claims. It also raises questions about whether Coach and other companies have been overzealous in pursuit of a legitimate objective, cracking down on the massive U.S. market for counterfeit goods.
“If Coach wants to send letters threatening $2 million lawsuits against their own customers, they should at least do minimal investigation to see whether those claims are accurate,” says Jay Carlson, one of Kim’s attorneys. “What we’re interested to see through discovery is how many people got this letter, got scared, signed it and simply paid Coach.”
via Local News | Was Coach overzealous in fake handbag crackdown? | Seattle Times Newspaper.
GMAC asserted a 47 USC 230(c)(2) defense against liability for Kordella’s comment. We don’t get many 230(c)(2) cases (in comparison to 230(c)(1), which comes up a lot). 230(c)(2) immunizes a website’s own filtering decisions, as opposed to 230(c)(1)’s immunity for third party content. The short opinion doesn’t explain the relationship between Kordella and GMAC–presumably not an employee-employer relationship if Kordella worked for GM–but apparently GMAC didn’t do enough to explain how GMAC did the requisite filtering that 230(c)(2) immunizes. Because the facts aren’t adequately connected to the legal defense, the court rejects it. The news isn’t all bad for GMAC; even though it didn’t get its 230(c)(2) defense, it is still clearly going to win this case.<br>
Although GMAC didn’t assert it, the court intimates that a 230(c)(1) defense may have been available. Presumably, if Kordella isn’t GMAC’s employee, then there’s no theory to connect GMAC to Kordella’s post that survives 230(c)(1). See, e.g., Novins v. Cannon. This case reminded me a little of the uncited Delfino v. Agilent case, where an employer got a 230(c)(1) defense for an employee’s Internet conduct when the employer basically only acted as the Internet access provider to the employee for purposes of the tortious conduct. Where GMAC isn’t even the tortfeasor’s employer, the 230(c)(1) case seems even stronger.
via Technology & Marketing Law Blog: Unsuccessful 230(c)(2) Defense for Blog Comment–Mealer v. GMAC.
ONE SEARCHABLE DATABASE FOR:ALL MOBILE DEVICESALL LEGAL RESEARCH APPSALL LEGAL UTILITY APPSOur comprehensive directory of mobile applications for law and lawyers includes both legal research and utility apps for all mobile devices. Whether you use an iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, Blackberry, Android, Palm PC, or…this is the place to find out which law apps are available for your device.
via Mobile Apps for Law – Searchable database of legal research apps.
Those wishing to view PDF files on their Windows PC´s now have a choice when it comes to Viewing PDF files – the PDF-XChange Viewer is smaller, faster and more feature rich than the Adobe Reader.The FREE PDF-XChange Viewer offers all the feature´s you would expect such as support of all PDF file formats from Version 1.0 all the way to the latest.You might be surprised just how quickly your large PDF files open and pages smoothly refresh as they are scrolled.Features: Tabbed Multiple Document Windows Add Comments and Annotations to any PDF file subject to security settings – unlilke the Adobe Viewer which requires the PDF creation tool to be ´certified´ by Adobe ! Markup pages with text and objects Type directly on any PDF page, not just Adobe enabled forms documents – in Typewriter mode. Export PDF pages or entire files to any one of the supported Image formats including BMP, JPEG, TIFF, PNG and many more … Extract text from a PDF page/File Make your navigation of large or complex PDF files both simple and enjoyable swith the extended functionality of our ´Loupe´ and the ´Pan´ Window tools And many more features such as Rotate and ´Save´, Email files etc …
via PDF-XChange Viewer 2.5.192 Download – Freeware Files.com – Business/Organize Category.
In this lengthy opinion, the court considered the question of whether an account holder has an expectation of privacy as to the contents of his emails. Answering in the affirmative, the court held that “a subscriber enjoys a reasonable expectation privacy in the contents of his emails ‘that are stored with, or sent or received through, a commercial ISP’” and that “the government may not compel a commercial ISP to turn over the contents of a subscriber’s emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.”Defendant Warshak was convicted of a number of crimes related to his company’s sales and accounting practices. During its investigation of Warshak, the government compelled the preservation and ultimately the production of emails from an internet service provider with which he maintained an account. This was accomplished, in large part, by serving a subpoena for the emails’ production pursuant to the Stored Communications Act, which “permits a ‘governmental entity’ to compel a service provider to disclose the contents of [electronic] communications in certain circumstances.” On appeal of his conviction, Warshak asserted that the disclosure, absent a warrant, violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
via f | blogger-following.