<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>techlawadvisor / blog</title>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/blog/</link>
<description>a blawg on technology, culture and the law</description>
<language>en</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:38:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<generator>http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.16</generator>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

<item>
<title>TWiL 10: The RIAA vs Jammie Thomas</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/twit.cachefly.net/TWiL-010.mp3">TWiL 10</a> at <a href="http://twit.tv/twil">TWiT</a></p>

<p>Host: <a href="http://bgbg.blogspot.com/">Denise Howell</a>, </p>

<p>Guests: <a href="http://www.svmedialaw.com/">Cathy Kirkman</a>, <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/palfrey/">John Palfrey</a>, Kevin Heller, and <a href="http://blog.ericgoldman.org/">Professor Eric Goldman</a>.</p>

<p>The panel discusses the RIAAs case vs. Jammie Thomas and new developments in indirect liability for third party acts and comments.</p>

<p>Our talking points are online at <a href="http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/10">http://del.icio.us/thisweekinlaw/10</a>.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/11/06/twil_10_the_riaa_vs_jammie_thomas.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/11/06/twil_10_the_riaa_vs_jammie_thomas.html</guid>
<category>Copyright</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:38:49 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Mastering Negotiation</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>A friend of mine is teaching a one day course at NYCLA (NY County<br />
Lawyers Assoc) next Thursday 11/15/07 titled <a href="http://techlawadvisor.com/docs/Consensus%20Workshop%20-%20Mastering%20Negotiation%20%28One%20Day%29.pdf">Mastering Negotiation</a>.<br />
</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/11/06/mastering_negotiation.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/11/06/mastering_negotiation.html</guid>
<category>Risk_Management</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:32:43 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>WikiPatents celebrates 1 year</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.wikipatents.com/">WikiPatents</a> just celebrated its first birthday!  During its first year, WikiPatents has become one of the most popular patent web sites on the Internet.  It has been mentioned by hundreds of web sites and blogs, has been covered by The New York Times, CNet, and other notable online publications, has welcomed millions of visitors, and has built an active community of over 25,000 members!  In its efforts to help improve patent quality, the WikiPatents Community has helped identify and comment on some of the most popular, valuable, amusing, interesting, and notable patents and patent applications.<br />
 <br />
The WikiPatents database now hosts over 10 million patents and patent applications and provides access to a number of valuable and FREE tools, including:</p>

<p>    * advanced patent searching,<br />
    * patent PDF files,<br />
    * PAIR file histories or file wrappers, and<br />
    * double-click word searching within the text of patent documents.</p>

<p>Among its most notable achievements, WikiPatents.com is contributing to an important movement of improving patent quality by allowing users to add prior art references, comment on the relevancy of prior art, and discuss the scope of inventors' claims.  To join the WikiPatents Community, go to http://www.wikipatents.com.  Of course, it's free to join.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/10/12/wikipatents_celebrates_1_year.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/10/12/wikipatents_celebrates_1_year.html</guid>
<category>Patents</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Oct 2007 15:36:53 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Hey Ladies...</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>No. Not the Beasties, but rather a new song by <a href="http://www.stereogum.com/archives/quit-your-day-job/quit-your-day-job-oxford-collapse.html">Oxford Collapse</a> entitled <a href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/StereogumMP3Feed/~3/149759487/Oxford%20Collapse%20-%20Lady%20Lawyers.mp3">Lady Lawyers</a>.</p>

<p><em>Related</em>: <a href="http://blog.technolawyer.com/2007/08/the-technolawye.html">The Technolawyer Summer Mix: 21 Pop Songs About Lawyers, Technology, Work, and More</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/08/29/hey_ladies.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/08/29/hey_ladies.html</guid>
<category>my mp3 blog</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 29 Aug 2007 17:59:58 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Blawger Bowl IV</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>Blawger Bowl has been dominated by one team for too long...</p>

<p><img alt="blawger-bowl.JPG" src="http://techlawadvisor.com/docs/blawger-bowl.JPG" width="468" height="479" /></p>

<p>2006: 1. <a href="http://bizzbangbuzz.blogspot.com/">Bizz Bang Buzz</a> 2. <a href="http://paulfrankenstein.org/">pf.org</a> 3. <a href="http://slashstar.com/blogs/tim/">Loosely Coupled</a></p>

<p>2005: 1. <a href="http://bizzbangbuzz.blogspot.com/">Bizz Bang Buzz</a> 2. <a href="http://www.iptablog.org/">IPTABlog</a> 3. <a href="http://unbillablehours.typepad.com/">Unbillable Hours</a></p>

<p>2004: 1. <a href="http://bizzbangbuzz.blogspot.com/">Bizz Bang Buzz</a> 2. Tech Law Advisor 3. <a href="http://www.inventblog.com/">The Invent Blog</a></p>

<p><em>Announcement</em>: <a href="http://www.patentbaristas.com/archives/2007/08/23/blawger-bowl-iv-gearing-up-expansion-teams-available/">Blawger Bowl IV Gearing Up; Expansion Teams Available</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/08/24/blawger_bowl_iv.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2007/08/24/blawger_bowl_iv.html</guid>
<category>miscellany</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 11:16:08 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Fantasy Sports Lawsuit Reply Brief</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://techlawadvisor.com/docs/Reply%20Brief.pdf">Download file</a></p>

<p><em>Previously</em>: <a href="http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/06/21/fantasy_sports_league_lawsuit_filed.html">Fantasy Sports League Lawsuit Filed!</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/11/01/fantasy_sports_lawsuit_reply_brief.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/11/01/fantasy_sports_lawsuit_reply_brief.html</guid>
<category>Internet Regulation</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:35:30 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>This Week in Law</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.twit.tv/twil"><img alt="twil.jpg" src="http://techlawadvisor.com/images/twil.jpg" width="100" height="101" align=right></a><a href="http://bgbg.blogspot.com">Denise Howell</a>'s much anticipated <a href="http://www.twit.tv/twil">This Week in Law</a> podcast series is off and running.</p>

<p>Update: <a href="http://www.twit.tv/twil">TWiL 6: Ecommerce and the Internet</a></p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/10/24/this_week_in_law.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/10/24/this_week_in_law.html</guid>
<category>Podcasts</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:00:28 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Myspace is Boomtown for Lawyers</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>There's no doubt that Myspace will start generating lots of lawsuits, but not necessarily for copyright infringement like <a href="http://iplawadvisor.com/archives/categories/copyright/index.html">Youtube</a>, but rather more like this one:</p>

<p>A high school assistant principal is suing two students and their parents, alleging the teens set up a Web page on MySpace.com in her name and posted obscene comments and pictures. In the complaint, the spoofed educator is claiming defamation, libel, negligence and negligent supervision: <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060922/ap_on_re_us/myspace_principal;_ylt=AqnwAixSBOzpd5kspRwxNqojtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2Z2szazkxBHNlYwN0bQ--">Official sues students over MySpace page</a>.</p>

<p>A very compliant Myspace removed the page when told it wasn't the assistant principal's profile.</p>

<p>In a not exactly related story, <a href="http://kevin.lexblog.com">Kevin O'Keefe</a> has posted on how attorney <a href="http://www.myspace.com/legallyblondepa">Anicia Ogonosky</a> gets new clients at MySpace: <a href="http://kevin.lexblog.com/2006/09/lawyer-blog-success-stories/blonde-attorney-gets-new-clients-at-myspace/">Blonde attorney gets new clients at MySpace</a>.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/22/myspace_is_boomtown_for_lawyers.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/22/myspace_is_boomtown_for_lawyers.html</guid>
<category>Media Perils</category>
<pubDate>Fri, 22 Sep 2006 13:03:00 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Target suing Blogger for posting anti-theft policy</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://msnbc.msn.com/id/14888129/">MSNBC</a> via <a href="http://www.virtualchase.com/tvcalert/transfer.asp?xmlFile=sep06/20sep06.xml#target">TVC</a> is reporting that Target Corp. has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Atlanta on September 5, 2006 for posting Target's anti-theft procedures on <a href="http://targetunion.org/">targetunion.org</a>.</p>

<p>MSNBC interviewed <a href="http://www.steptoe.com/professionals-47.html">David Bodney</a>, a First Amendment and media rights lawyer with Phoenix-based Steptoe & Johnson LLP, who indicates that if the John Doe blogger never signed a confidentiality decree, then "Target would have to prove the poster knew the policy was confidential" and that "the postings had no legitimate purpose other than to malign."</p>

<p>According to the anonymous poster in question "<a href="http://www.targetunion.org/node/15260">Target Sucks</a>" on July 28, 2006, Target's law firm <a href="www.faegre.com">Faegre & Benson</a> was <a href="http://www.retail-worker.com/documents/20060727.target_cease_and_desist.pdf">monitoring</a> (pdf) the site for improper activity.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/20/target_suing_blogger_for_posting_anti-theft_policy.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/20/target_suing_blogger_for_posting_anti-theft_policy.html</guid>
<category>Blogging</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 17:03:16 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Get Legal Mojo Working</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>The 3 <a href="http://www.rethinkip.com/archives/legalmojo_legal_jobs_boardcoming_soon.html">rethink(ip)ers</a> are about to launch the premiere job board for legal professionals:  <a href="http://www.legalmojo.com/">LegalMojo</a>.</p>

<p>To get it going, they are looking for available positions in your firm, company or organization. To discuss details and get your posting listed, contact their jobs board director Vince @ legalmojo.com.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/20/get_legal_mojo_working.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/20/get_legal_mojo_working.html</guid>
<category>Jobs</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:20:35 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Copyright Law - It&apos;s Tricky</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.myspace.com/theknackband"><img alt="knack_mysharona_7inch.JPG" src="http://iplawadvisor.com/archives/images/knack_mysharona_7inch.JPG" width="200" height="200" align="right"></a><a href="http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2006/09/15/the-knack-sue-run-dmc-over-its-tricky-riff/">Rolling Stone</a> via <a href="http://www.stereogum.com/archives/003406.html">Stereogum</a> is reporting that The Knack is suing <a href="http://myspace.com/revrun ">Run</a> <a href="http://www.myspace.com/dmc">DMC</a> for sampling the 1979 "My Sharona"  in their rap single "It's Tricky" off of the group's 1986 <em>Raising Hell</em>. Which essentially means that <a href="http://www.myspace.com/theknackband">The Knack</a> is bringing this lawsuit 20 years after the song was released. I imagine that Run DMC's response may go something like this:</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/19/copyright_law_-_its_tricky.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/19/copyright_law_-_its_tricky.html</guid>
<category>Copyright</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:11:47 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>More on the YouTube Business Model</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p>YouTube (<a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115862128600366836-pJip_NHyQ7j0b44svDZ2kgHCYfs_20070918.html?mod=blogs">YouTube Model Is Compromise on Copyrights</a>) is rolling out technology to spot pirated material in a plan to defuse big media companies from suing them for copyright infringement. YouTube then plans to share ad revenue from that material with media companies.</p>

<p>YouTube should note that all of the user generated content is also subject to copyright and unless its uploaded by the creator or licensee is technically 'pirated material'.</p>

<p>The article goes on to say that "YouTube could open itself up to a flood of requests by creators of videos looking for their own share of advertising revenue. Other sites such as Revver Inc. currently give amateur video creators a percentage of ad revenue. YouTube in the future will explore options for sharing online ad revenue with smaller, or amateur creators, Mr. Hurley said. But right now we're building tools for record labels, TV networks and movie studios."</p>

<p>Let's just hope they don't alienate their users in the meantime.</p>

<p><em>Previously</em>: <a href="http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/16/universal_to_sue_youtube.html">Universal to Sue YouTube?</a></p>

<p><em>Related</em>: Mark Cuban on <a href="http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/09/17/the-coming-dramatic-decline-of-youtube/">The Coming Dramatic Decline of Youtube</a> (ed - he wrote this prior to reading any of my posts or the WSJ articles apparently; maybe Calacanis is going to his head.)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/19/more_on_the_youtube_business_model.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/19/more_on_the_youtube_business_model.html</guid>
<category>Video</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 19 Sep 2006 09:37:56 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Belgian Court Orders Google To Stop Publishing News Content</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115857514529866160-8FId7aXQZ25kdDvKdc_kqVUWoAo_20070917.html?mod=rss_free">WSJ</a>: A Belgian court ordered Internet search giant Google Inc. to stop publishing content from Belgian newspapers without permission or payment of fees, a Belgian press association said Monday. The setback is the latest chapter in the search titan's struggle with publishers over copyright issues.</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/18/belgian_court_orders_google_to_stop_publishing_news_content.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/18/belgian_court_orders_google_to_stop_publishing_news_content.html</guid>
<category>Media Perils</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 18 Sep 2006 20:37:23 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Universal to Sue YouTube</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p> It appears that Universal Music may be preparing to file a lawsuit against YouTube for copyright infringement. [<a href="http://blogs.zdnet.com/Howell/?p=30">Lawgarithms</a>]</p>

<p>As I've stated before elsewhere, unlike <a href="http://techlawadvisor.com/blog/2005/06/27/grokster_decision.html">Grokster</a>, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/">YouTube</a> is not a business built on copyright infringement. There is tons of user generated content and YouTube quickly complies with copyright owners' requests to have their materials taken down from the site.</p>

<p><a href="http://iplawadvisor.com/archives/images/Capture8-12-2006-8.56.20%20AM.jpg"><img src="http://iplawadvisor.com/archives/images/Capture8-12-2006-8.56.20%20AM-thumb.jpg" alt="Capture8-12-2006-8.56.20 AM.jpg" height="90" width="450" /></a></p>

<p>If I were their lawyer, I'd advise them to post "This video has been removed as per the request of the copyright owner" rather than admitting "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=%22This+video+has+been+removed+due+to+copyright+infringement.%22&amp;start=0&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;client=firefox-a&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official">due to copyright infringement</a>" as they do in the above. (h/t <a href="http://www.inventblog.com/patent/">Nipper</a>)</p>

<p>Another lawyer looking to represent YouTube, <a href="http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=copyrightlawdc">Ron from DC</a>, says that YouTube does not <a href="http://techlawadvisor.com/induce/">induce</a> copyright infringements. Watch what he has to say on YouTube with this informative video entitled: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr9SQ4qkMMk">Youtube Sued! Will Copyright Kill The Video Star?</a></p>

<p>Related/Updated: Here's YouTube’s <a href="http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ip/turyoutube101106answr.html">answer</a> to the copyright lawsuit filed by Robert Tur, a Los Angeles pilot and journalist. Tur alleged that his copyright-protected video footage of truck driver Reginald Denny's beating in the city's 1992 race riots was uploaded and viewed on YouTube in violation of the <a href="http://techlawadvisor.com/dmca">Digital Millennium Copyright Act</a> (DMCA) and related laws. YouTube's answer maintains that the company "respects third parties' intellectual property rights," complies with the DMCA’s "Safe Harbor" provisions, and is "a service provider...immune from liability from copyright infringement..."</p>

<p><object height="350" width="425"><br />
<param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/rr9SQ4qkMMk"></param><br />
<param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/rr9SQ4qkMMk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></embed></object></p></p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/16/universal_to_sue_youtube.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/16/universal_to_sue_youtube.html</guid>
<category></category>
<pubDate>Sat, 16 Sep 2006 22:08:02 -0500</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>What Banned Books have you read?</title>
<description><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.google.com/bannedbooks"><img src="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/uploaded_images/banned_book_button-740492.gif" align="right"></a><a href="http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/celebrate-your-freedom-to-read.html">Google blog</a> has a post on the <a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bannedbooksweek.htm">American Library Association's Banned Books Week</a> (Sept. 23-30) and Google has also created a <a href="http://books.google.com/googlebooks/banned/">Banned Books page</a>  (in conjunction with <a href="http://books.google.com/">Book Search</a>) to highlight novels that have been <a href="http://www.ala.org/ala/oif/bannedbooksweek/bbwlinks/reasonsbanned.htm">threatened or actually banned</a>.</p>

<p>Related: <a href="http://www.aclupa.org/events/bannedbooksreadingsinphila.htm">Banned Books Readings in Philadelphia</a></p>

<p>Being challenged this year are <a href="http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=1&as_brr=0&as_vt=To+Kill+a+Mockingbird&as_auth=Harper+Lee&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=">To Kill A Mockingbird</a> by Harper Lee and <a href="http://books.google.com/books?as_q=&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_libcat=1&as_brr=0&as_vt=lolita&as_auth=nabokov&as_pub=&as_drrb=c&as_miny=&as_maxy=&as_isbn=">Lolita</a> by Vladimir Nabokov (I saw the movie for both and also read the latter).</p>

<p>Apparently I've read many of these books (or seen the movie based on the novel in some cases) (after the jump)</p>]]></description>
<link>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/13/what_banned_books_have_you_read.html</link>
<guid>http://techlawadvisor.com/2006/09/13/what_banned_books_have_you_read.html</guid>
<category>Google</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:58:08 -0500</pubDate>
</item>


</channel>
</rss>