Yesterday, the U.S. Copyright Office released a report evaluating the impact and effectiveness of the “safe harbor” provisions contained in Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The report recommends “rebalancing” the “safe harbor” protection — jeopardizing one of the most important safeguards for the Open Internet without taking due account of ways the current system has been abused.

Today, reports surfaced that the Trump Administration is drafting an Executive Order that would require the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Trade Commission to monitor speech on social media platforms. Reports indicate that the draft order calls for the FCC to develop new regulations detailing how and when the law shields social media companies when they remove content from their platforms. Public Knowledge finds this Administration’s potential abandonment of free speech and agency independence alarming.

I have written about app stores at length before but it is worth reiterating a few points given the recent news about Apple removing access to the Hkmap.live app (which helps people track police activity) and Google removing access to The Revolution of Our Times (a protest game).  First, Apple’s (and Google’s) explanations don’t pass […]

The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Packingham v. North Carolina struck down, as unconstitutional under the First Amendment, a state law making it a felony for registered sex offenders to access social media websites. The decision has wide-ranging potential implications for technology law, especially on matters of rights to access the internet, which are particularly important for marginalized and disenfranchised voices in our society. Below, Harold Feld reviews the Packingham decision and explores its implications for one area of law: the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s provisions regarding termination of Internet access for accused copyright infringers. This post was originally posted on Harold’s personal blog, “Tales of the Sausage Factory,” on wetmachine.com.

An appeal playing out in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals over mobile phone labeling exposes a phenomenon of great import to the future of technology: corporate use of the First Amendment to ax regulation. The stakes are seemingly rather small in the case of CTIA v. City of Berkeley. It involves a humble municipal ordinance requiring cell phone retailers to disclose the same information about permissible levels of radiofrequency (RF) radiation that the Federal Communications Commission already requires mobile phone manufacturers to reveal in their manuals.

As EFF has noted, a troubling bill has been making its way through the Florida state legislature. The bill, with versions in both the state House and Senate, would require anyone “dealing in…the electronic dissemination of commercial recordings or audiovisual works” to post their “true and correct name, physical address, and email or telephone number” on their site.