We reviewed Judge Stanton’s comprehensive decision in this closely watched case. If upheld on appeal, it’s a victory not only for YouTube and Google, but for all Internet service providers (ISPs).
If you haven’t followed the case, Viacom had sued Google and YouTube for intentional and contributory copyright infringement, alleging “tens of thousands of videos on YouTube … were taken unlawfully from Viacom’s copyrighted works without authorization.” In defense, Google and YouTube asserted DMCA section 512. This so-called ”safe harbor” limits ISP liability for copyright infringement in certain situations. Whether defendants in copyright cases enjoy the limitation of liability is based on, among other things, their knowledge of — and response to – infringing activity on their service of which they become aware. Read more »
Tags: Copyright Infringement, Digital Millen. Copyright Act, Google, safe harbor, Viacom, YouTube
Copyright Act, Court Cases, Google, Viacom, YouTube | editor | 
June 25, 2010 2:21 pm | 
Comments (0)
There’s big news in the CyberLaw world today. The Associated Press is reporting that a federal court in New York has dismissed Viacom’s $1 billion copyright suit against Google and YouTube. It appears the defendants’ Digital Millennium Copyright Act sec. 512 safe-harbor defense carried the day. We are reading the 30 page decision by Southern District Judge Louis Stanton now. More to come.
The Federal Trade Commission voted five to zero to give regulatory approval to Google’s acquisition of the mobile advertising network AdMob. The deal was first announced last November. The Commission concluded the acquisition is unlikely to harm competition in the mobile advertising networks market. The Commission relied on recent evidence demonstrating Apple will be a strong competitor in the mobile advertising market. (Apple recently acquired Quattro Wireless for use in connection with the Apple iAd service.) The deal may signal increased interest in acquiring businesses in the digital advertising space — Gavin D. McElroy
The New York Times is reporting that a broad coalition of organizations including the ACLU, the EFF, Google, AT&T and Microsoft have formed a new group called the Digital Due Process Coalition to push Congress to strengthen Internet privacy laws. Facebook is notably absent from the group.
A California federal court has handed Google a legal victory in a battle over its successful AdWords platform.
The plaintiff in Jurin v. Google Inc. sells building materials to contractors and homeowners. Plaintiff sells the materials under its ”StyroTrim” trademark. The plaintiff was upset to learn that Google’s AdWords program had “suggested” StyroTrim as a keyword. Competitors allegedly bid on the term and then appeared in the “sponsored links” accompanying searches for StyroTrim — sometimes in a higher “position” than Jurin’s company. Plaintiff alleged Google’s AdWords infringed the StyroTrim trademark and constituted false advertising under the Lanham Act. Plaintiff also alleged the AdWords “sponsored links” constituted a “false designation of [the] origin [of Styrotrim materials]” under that act. Finally, plaintiff claimed Google had negligently and intentionally interfered with plaintiff’s contractual relations with its customers. Google moved to dismiss these claims. Read more »
Tags: AdWords, Communications Decency Act, Google, Lanham Act, Styrotrim, Trademark
Advertising, Communications Decency Act, Court Cases, Google, Lanham Act (Trademark) | editor | March 11, 2010 12:59 pm | Comments (0)
“We have decided we are no longer willing to continue censoring our results on Google.cn, and so over the next few weeks we will be discussing with the Chinese government the basis on which we could operate an unfiltered search engine within the law, if at all. We recognize that this may well mean having to shut down Google.cn, and potentially our offices in China.” — David Drummond , Google SVP & Chief Legal Officer
Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google, recently spoke to the Atlantic’s James Fallows about the future of the Internet.
The FCC has released a letter in which Google says an Apple executive rejected its iPhone application for Google Voice, a statement that appeared to contradict Apple’s own claims to the FCC.
In letters to the Federal Communications Commission, both Apple and AT&T have denied that AT&T played any role in determining whether the Google Voice application would be approved for use on Apple’s iPhone. Apple also indicated that it has not rejected Google Voice, but is “still pondering” whether to allow the application, which includes functionality that could replace several programs on the iPhone.
Apple’s decision-making process regarding its approval or rejection of specific iPhone applications has always been something of a mystery. Yesterday, Phil Schiller, a senior Apple executive, took the unusual step of e-mailing John Gruber of Daring Fireball to comment on the approval process for the Ninjawords application, a dictionary application that was rejected multiple times because it, apparently, contained more offensive language than standard, published dictionaries. As a private company, Apple will assert its right to determine which apps it wants to sell. This was most starkly illustrated recently with Apple’s decision to reject the Google Voice application, a decision that caused considerable outrage in the tech world. One hopes, however, that this is a first step by Apple towards greater transparency respecting its decision-making process and application approval criteria. I know that our clients – whether they are the application programmers or the creative forces behind them – would certainly appreciate more disclosure from Apple in this area.
Subscribe