Since Part 1 in this series a few months ago, Plaintiffs have continued to file “pure bill of discovery” suits in Florida state court. These proceedings typically involve “John Does” who are accused of copyright infringement via peer-to-peer networks. The Plaintiffs (copyright-holders or their delegates) have continued to name as defendants in those “pure discovery” […]
The Latest in Nationwide Internet User Identification – Part 2 (the All-New, So-Called Federal Co-Conspirator Theory)
April 11, 2012 by
My Public Comments to the CA/Browser Forum Organizational Reform Working Group
March 30, 2012 by
Today, I submitted public comments to the CA/Browser Forum. CA/B Forum is an industry group started by Certificate Authorities — the companies that sell digital certificates to web sites so that your browser can encrypt your communications and can tell you whether it’s connecting to the genuine site. It is important that CAs do a good job, and there have been several examples of Bad Guys getting fraudulent certificates for major web sites recently. You can read the comments below, or download a pretty PDF version.
Public Comments to the CA/Browser Forum Organizational Reform Working Group
March 30, 2012
I am pleased to respond to the CA/Browser Forum’s request for comments on its plan to establish an Organizational Reform Working Group.[1] For more than a decade, Internet users have relied upon digital certificates to encrypt and authenticate their most valuable communications. Nevertheless, few users understand the technical intricacies of the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) and the policies that govern it. Their expectations of secure communication with validated third-parties are set by the software that they use on a daily basis–typically web browsers–and by faith in the underlying certificates that are issued by Certificate Authorities (CAs). CAs and browser vendors have therefore been entrusted with critically important processes, and the public reasonably relies on them to observe current best practices and to relentlessly pursue even better practices in response to new threats.
Tech@FTC
March 27, 2012 by
Professor Ed Felten, while on loan to the Federal Trade Commission for 2011 and Spring 2012, has a new Tech Policy Blog, Tech@FTC. When he’s in his role as Chief Technologist of the FTC, he’ll blog there; when he’s wearing his regular hat as Professor of Computer Science and Director of the Center for Information Technology Policy, he’ll blog here at freedom-to-tinker.
Of course, the big news from the FTC this week is the official report, Protecting Consumer Privacy in an Era of Rapid Change, and I see that Ed has something to say about that. But he’s also got an article about SQL injection and our friend, little Bobby Tables.
Join Us at Princeton Tomorrow for "Copyright Cat-and-Mouse: New Developments in Online Enforcement"
March 12, 2012 by
Tomorrow afternoon, the Center for Information Technology Policy is hosting an event that looks at the state of online copyright enforcement and the policy perspectives of the parties involved. We’ve got a great lineup, with folks from the content industry, internet service providers, web companies, academics, and the press.
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Time: 1:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Location: The Friend Center, Princeton University, Convocation Room
hashtag: #copyrightcitp
This conference is free and open to the public. Please register here.
Copyright enforcement in the digital era has been an ongoing game of cat-and-mouse. As new technologies emerge for storing and transmitting creative works, content creators struggle to identify the best response. The content industry has employed different tactics over time — including technological copy protection, litigation against infringers, and collaboration with Internet Service Providers (ISPs). In August of 2011, some members of the content industry signed an historic Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with some of the largest ISPs, agreeing to a “graduated response” system of policing. ISPs agreed to notify their subscribers if allegedly infringing activity was detected from their connection and, if infringement continued after multiple warnings, to impede access. Meanwhile, a wave of “copyright troll” litigation has continued to sweep the country and burden the courts. Use of takedown notices under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act has continued to evolve. This event will examine enforcement efforts to date, and debate the merits of the new private approach embodied in the MOU framework.
New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania CLE credit is available for attorneys who attend. (details)
Keynote: Technology and Trends (1:00 PM – 1:30 PM)
Mike Freedman, Assistant Professor in Computer Science, Princeton University
Panel 1: The Existing US Legal Landscape (1:30 PM – 3:00 PM)
Moderator: Bart Huffman, Locke Lord LLP
- Preston Padden, Adjunct Professor at Colorado Law School and former Executive VP of Government Relations, The Walt Disney Company
- Timothy B. Lee, Ars Technica
- Randy Cadenhead, Privacy Counsel, Cox Communications Inc.
- Katherine Oyama, Copyright Counsel, Google Inc.
Break (3:00 PM – 3:30 PM)
Panel 2: The 2011 Content-ISP MoU (3:30 PM – 5:00 PM)
Moderator: Stephen Schultze, Princeton CITP
- Joe Karaganis, Vice President, the American Assembly, Columbia University
- Keith Epstein, Associate General Counsel at AT&T
- Annemarie Bridy, Fellow, Princeton CITP
- Daniel M. Mandil, Senior Vice President, Associate General Counsel, Litigation, Viacom Inc.
Don't Upset the Intellectual Property Fashion Police
March 6, 2012 by
A student group at the University of Pennsylvania Law School has put together a fantastic symposium on the state of fashion law, but along the way they (allegedly) snagged themselves on Louis Vuitton’s trademarks. After creating a poster with a creative parody of the Louis Vuitton logo, they received a Cease & Desist letter from the company’s attorneys claiming:
While every day Louis Vuitton knowingly faces the stark reality of battling and interdicting the proliferation of infringements of the LV Trademarks, I was dismayed to learn that the University of Pennsylvania Law School’s Penn Intellectual Property Group had misappropriated and modified the LV Trademarks and Toile Monogram as the background for its invitation and poster for the March 20, 2012 Annual Symposium on “IP Issues in Fashion Law.”
Ironically, the symposium aims to further education and understanding of the state of intellectual protection in the fashion industry, and to discuss controversial new proposals to expand the scope of protection, such as the proposed bill H.R. 2511, the “Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act”.
The attorneys at Penn responded by letter, indicating that Louis Vuitton’s complaint failed any conceivable interpretation of trademark law — outlining the standard claims such as confusion, blurring, or tarnishment — and asserted the obvious defenses provided by law for noncommercial and educational fair use. It indicated that the general counsel had told the students to “make it work” with the unmodified version of the poster, and concluded by inviting Louis Vuitton attorneys to attend the symposium (presumably to learn a bit more about how trademark law actually works.)
I, for one, am offended that the Center for Information Technology Policy here at Princeton has not received any Cease & Desist letters accusing us of “egregious action [that] is not only a serious willful infringement” of fashion trademarks, but “may also may mislead others into thinking that this type of unlawful behavior is somehow ‘legal’ or constitutes ‘fair use’.” You see, our lecture this Thursday at 12:30pm at Princeton by Deven Desai, “An Information Approach to Trademarks”, has a poster that includes portions of registered fashion industry trademarks as well. Attorneys from Christian Dior and Ralph Lauren, we welcome you to attend our event.
