EU to US: Undoing Broadband Privacy Signals U.S. Is Not Serious About Privacy ProtectionsApril 12, 2017 Broadband Privacy , International , Net Neutrality , Privacy Shield , Safe Harbor
Last week, the European Parliament (EP) passed a resolution manifesting concern over the EU-US Privacy Shield, a legal scheme that allows American companies to transfer personal data from the European Union to the United States. In a nutshell, the EP is worried that the U.S. government doesn’t take privacy protection seriously, and the Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) make explicit reference to, among other things, the Trump administration’s undoing of the Federal Communication Commission’s broadband privacy rules.Read More
PK In The Know Podcast: Government Shutdown, PK IP3, Charging for Public Artwork, DMCA Safe HarborOctober 18, 2013 DMCA , Government 2.0 , IP3 , Safe Harbor
Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes here.
Subscribe to the podcast via the .xml here.
Click here to download the file for this week’s podcast directly.
The Craigslist Case and Other Examples of Copyright AbuseMay 2, 2013 DMCA , Enforcement , Safe Harbor , Statutory Damages
Two Questions About MegaUpload’s Planned SuccessorOctober 19, 2012 DMCA , Enforcement , Safe Harbor
Charles Graeber at Wired has an article profiling Mega, the planned successor to MegaUpload. A key difference between the old service (indicted on criminal copyright charges in the US) and the new service is that all of the filed uploaded to mega will be encrypted upon upload, meaning that Mega won’t know, and won’t have any way of finding out, what’s actually sitting on its servers. That should prevent it from being accused of ignoring activity it knows is infringing. Mega also says that if copyright holders find users providing the keys and the links to infringing files, Mega will abide by the DMCA and take down those files.Read More
Appeals Court Rejects Viacom Arguments Against YouTubeApril 5, 2012 DMCA , Filtering , Safe Harbor , SOPA
In their case against YouTube, Viacom and other content companies keep looking for ways to impose a duty to monitor on the video-sharing site. Despite the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) clear statements that services don’t need to monitor, the content companies keep trying to pick away at other components of the law to work their way around it. (Public Knowledge filed a friend-of-the-court brief in this case, arguing that filters and monitoring aren’t required to meet the DMCA requirements)
Today, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York shot down the majority of those theories. Meanwhile, the case has been sent back to the district court level for more factfinding on exactly how much YouTube employees may have known about the presence of specific infringing files on their service.