Communications Decency Act Issues Raised in Recent Facebook Suit

Facebook is being sued for content it has posted according to an article in PC Mag.com.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353659,00.asp

A comprehensive discussion of issues around the Communications Decency Act of 1996, Section 230, is located here:

http://www.cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2008/4

An excerpt from this article by the Center for Democracy & Technology states:

"The four amicus briefs [filed by the CDT] essentially all argue for the same thing: a continued reading of §230 in the spirit that Congress intended and that a multitude of courts have so far followed. Any departure would otherwise stifle the provision's purpose and undermine industry strides towards responsible self-regulation. In those briefs, CDT argues that "intermediaries" - ISPs, websites, and online service providers that enable other people - Internet users - to post content onto the Internet should not be held liable for the content posted. To hold intermediaries liable would greatly chill their willingness to host online content created by others. To use a simple example, if the YouTube.com video sharing website had to be legally responsible for the content of the tens or hundreds of thousands of new videos posted to it each day, the site could not possibly continue to operate as an open forum for users' video expression."

The Citizens Media Law Project also provides a comprehensive overview:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/section-230

And, another excellent discussion on David Johnson's blog

http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/09/lessons_from_batzel_v_smith_no.html

High court approves injunction via Twitter

In the guardian.co.uk http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/oct/01/twitter-injunction

Community College State Directors See Funding Issues Ahead

According to an article in the chronicle, a recent survey conducted by the Education Policy Center at the University of Alabama, "In a period of all-time record enrollments, the directors predicted that state operating-budget support for community colleges will decline by 1 percent in this fiscal year." Tuition is expected to rise at the rate of twice of inflation during the coming year.

Read more: http://chronicle.com/article/State-Directors-of-Community/48586/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en

Additional DMCA Rulemaking Questions Received

I have, along with other DMCA rulemaking-hearing participants, received a second question set from the U.S. Copyright Office. The questions are premised by: "For purposes of the question below, please assume that the Register has decided to recommend an exemption to the prohibition for proposed classes 4A through 4H, 11A and 11B, or some portion thereof, relating to motion pictures on CSS-protected DVDs" and ask:

“From your unique perspectives, is there a limitation, either in terms of duration or percentage (or both), which could be incorporated into the definition of an exempted class of works?”

Specifically, the copyright office suggests the following language could possibly be used in the context of finished products (remixes) for crafting the new exemption:

“… the portions of any single work used shall be, collectively, no greater than x minutes in duration and represent no greater than y percent of the duration of that work….”

The questions also acknowledge how creating a quantity limitation might be objectionable to some, but since this is not a redrafting of section 107, but is instead an administrative rulemaking proceeding, they are asking for suggestions from hearing participants nonetheless. They state:

“Again, we recognize that for purposes of fair use, what may be a reasonable duration in one case will not necessarily be a reasonable duration in another case, we are not proposing to codify the fair use doctrine in this rulemaking proceeding. However, this is a regulatory proceeding and for the purposes of promulgating a regulation governing exemptions from the prohibition on circumvention, we are inclined to believe that more specific limitations are advisable so that, at least for purposes of predicting liability under section 1201(a)(1), users will find sufficient guidance in the regulatory text.”

The questions were emailed to hearing participants Friday August 21, 2009 at 5:38 pm, EST. Responses are due September 8, 2009 by 5 pm.

EFF's von Lohmann provides analysis on DMCA-DVD jukebox cases

Fred von Lohmann of EFF has provided a thoughtful analysis of the two recent DVD - DMCA-related cases that have been decided this week.

"Just one day after Judge Patel's ruling against RealDVD, a California appeals court has ruled against Kaleidescape, reversing the lower court and sending that case back for a fresh determination of whether Kaleidescape violated the terms of the DVD-CCA license."

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/judge-rules-against-realdvd

RealNetwork loses ruling in DMCA related case

"The decision represents a major victory for the film studios, which had accused Real of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and breach of contract in a lawsuit filed last fall."

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10307921-93.html

White House's Acting Cybersecurity Czar Resigns

From the Wall Street Journal: "The resignation highlights the difficulty the White House has had following through on its cybersecurity effort. President Barack Obama first outlined his cybersecurity plans in a high-profile speech May 29, announcing his intention to create a top White House cybersecurity post -- a position he has yet to fill."

The whole story: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124932480886002237.html