Podcasts about digital millennium copyright act dmca

This Day in Legal History: 13th Amendment RatifiedOn December 6, 1865, the United States formally abolished slavery with the ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution. This historic amendment declared that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." Its passage marked the culmination of decades of abolitionist struggle and the bloody Civil War, which had torn the nation apart over the issue of human bondage. The amendment was first passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, but required ratification by three-fourths of the states to become law. This final step was achieved when Georgia, the 27th state needed for approval, ratified it. Although President Abraham Lincoln had issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, freeing slaves in Confederate-held territories, the 13th Amendment went further by permanently outlawing slavery throughout the entire country, including states loyal to the Union.The amendment also laid the groundwork for subsequent constitutional changes aimed at achieving racial equality, including the 14th and 15th Amendments. However, it was not the end of systemic racial oppression. In the years that followed, practices like sharecropping and the rise of "Black Codes" sought to perpetuate the subjugation of African Americans. The amendment's exception clause—allowing involuntary servitude as punishment for crimes—also became a basis for exploitative practices in the penal system, with effects still debated today.Nevertheless, the ratification of the 13th Amendment remains a cornerstone of American history, symbolizing the nation's legal commitment to freedom and human dignity. It was a monumental step in the ongoing journey toward civil rights and justice in the United States.The U.S. Supreme Court is examining United States v. Miller, a case involving the IRS and a bankruptcy trustee, which centers on whether sovereign immunity allows the IRS to keep payments made by a company before bankruptcy. The dispute arose from All Resort Group Inc.'s payment of $145,000 to cover its directors' personal tax debts three years prior to its bankruptcy filing. The trustee argues these payments were fraudulent transfers since the company was insolvent at the time, and the IRS should return the funds like any other creditor.Justices across ideological lines expressed skepticism of the IRS's claim that state fraudulent transfer laws and extended lookback periods, typically used by bankruptcy trustees, are inapplicable due to sovereign immunity. Justice Kavanaugh warned that reversing lower court rulings in favor of the trustee could enable fraud by allowing debtors to misuse company funds while shielding the IRS from clawback actions.The IRS maintains that the trustee's actions exceed the two-year lookback period allowed under bankruptcy law and that sovereign immunity blocks state law-based extensions. Critics argue that siding with the IRS could undermine bankruptcy trustees' avoidance powers, giving the government an unfair advantage over other creditors.Justices, including Barrett, Kagan, and Jackson, questioned the IRS's reasoning, suggesting it contradicts bankruptcy law's intent to treat the government like other creditors in such cases. Legal experts noted that Utah's fraudulent transfer laws, used to extend the recovery period, align with federal principles, challenging the IRS's "peculiar" stance.IRS Climbing a Steep Hill in Bankruptcy Trustee Clawback DisputeOpenAI plans to request the centralization of eight copyright and Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) lawsuits into a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in New York and California, according to statements made to a federal judge. These lawsuits allege that OpenAI infringed on copyrights during the training of its large language models. Plaintiffs include prominent names like The New York Times, comedian Sarah Silverman, and author Ta-Nehisi Coates. OpenAI assured the court it will continue participating in discovery while the request is reviewed by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Notably, one DMCA claim by Intercept Media Inc., alleging OpenAI removed copyright management information from its content, recently survived a motion to dismiss. However, OpenAI successfully defended against a similar suit from Raw Story Media Inc. and Alternet Media Inc.The company has also sought to merge suits filed by The New York Times and Daily News LP. OpenAI is represented by Morrison & Foerster LLP, Latham & Watkins LLP, and Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, while the authors are represented by the Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP and Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP. The case underlines ongoing legal challenges for AI companies related to copyright and content use.OpenAI to Seek to Centralize Eight Copyright Lawsuits Against ItHouse Democrats are divided on a Senate-passed bill to add 66 judgeships to federal district courts, with some wary of granting Donald Trump the opportunity to appoint new judges during his presidency. The JUDGES Act, which aims to address judicial shortages in heavily burdened districts, represents the first major expansion of the federal judiciary since 1990. While some Democrats, such as Reps. Doris Matsui and Eric Swalwell, emphasize the urgent need for additional judges in their states, others, like Rep. Jerrold Nadler, oppose the timing, accusing Republicans of strategically advancing the bill after Trump's election win.The legislation proposes phasing in new judgeships over the next three presidential terms, beginning with 11 appointments in 2025 and another 11 in 2027. Courts in states with Democratic senators would receive 37 permanent seats, while those in Republican states would gain 26 permanent and three temporary positions. Supporters argue that the measure addresses pressing judicial workloads, such as in California's Eastern District, where judges face one of the nation's highest case-to-population ratios. However, critics suspect political maneuvering, with Rep. Zoe Lofgren questioning why Republicans waited until after Trump's victory to advance the bill. House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan hopes to pass the measure quickly, and experts note Republicans may secure enough Democratic support despite objections. The judiciary's policymaking body and federal judges back the bill, though its timing and implications for Trump's influence over the judiciary remain contentious.House Democrats Split on Bill to Add Judges After Trump Win (1)Donald Trump announced David Sacks, venture capitalist and co-founder of Craft Ventures, as his pick for the newly created position of AI and Crypto Czar. This role will oversee federal policy on artificial intelligence and cryptocurrency, with a focus on boosting U.S. leadership in these sectors. Sacks, a prominent Trump supporter and Silicon Valley figure, has ties to Elon Musk and was a key fundraiser for Trump's campaign. He is also set to lead the Presidential Council of Advisors for Science and Technology.Sacks' responsibilities will include crafting a legal framework to provide clarity for the crypto industry, a sector Trump has pledged to support after previously criticizing it. He will also influence the regulation and adoption of AI, countering Biden-era executive orders on AI oversight, which Trump has criticized as stifling innovation. Despite holding investments in crypto and enterprise software, Sacks will not be required to divest his assets, though conflict-of-interest rules will limit his involvement in specific decisions. Known for advocating free speech and opposing "Big Tech bias," Sacks aligns with Trump's broader deregulatory agenda. His appointment, alongside crypto advocate Paul Atkins to lead the SEC, signals a strong focus on deregulation for digital assets and tech industries.Trump Names David Sacks as White House AI and Crypto Czar (2)This week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven – a composer of some note.Ludwig van Beethoven, one of the towering figures of classical music, revolutionized the art form with his innovative compositions and bold vision. Born in Bonn in 1770, Beethoven's life spanned the Classical and Romantic eras, and his works embodied the bridge between these two periods. Despite his struggles with hearing loss, he composed some of the most enduring and transformative music ever written. Among his celebrated symphonies, the Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op. 92, stands out for its infectious energy, rhythmic innovation, and emotional depth. Premiered in 1813, the symphony's exuberance earned it a special place in audiences' hearts, with the second movement, Allegretto, becoming an instant favorite.This week, we spotlight Franz Liszt's masterful piano transcription of Beethoven's Symphony No. 7. Liszt, a virtuoso pianist and composer of the Romantic era, was renowned for his transcriptions, which brought orchestral works to the solo piano repertoire, allowing a wider audience to experience their brilliance. His transcription of the Seventh Symphony captures not only the rhythmic vitality and dramatic contrasts of Beethoven's original but also its delicate nuances and grandeur.The second movement, in particular, shines in Liszt's version, with its solemn, almost hymn-like theme resonating deeply on the piano. Its hypnotic pulse and poignant melody reveal the emotional core of Beethoven's vision, even in a solo performance. This piece embodies the interplay of intensity and elegance that defines Beethoven's work and showcases Liszt's genius as both interpreter and innovator.Without further ado, Ludwig van Beethoven's Symphony No. 7 in A Major, Op. 92. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Beer Hall PutschOn November 8, 1923, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party launched a failed coup known as the Beer Hall Putsch in Munich, Germany. Hitler, alongside other far-right leaders, sought to overthrow the Weimar Republic by forcibly taking control of the Bavarian government and inspiring a national revolution. The plan was set into motion when Hitler and his supporters stormed a Munich beer hall where Bavarian officials were gathered, intending to coerce them into backing the coup. However, the attempt quickly unraveled. As the Nazis marched through Munich, they were met with resistance from police forces, resulting in a violent confrontation that left 15 Nazi supporters and four police officers dead. The coup collapsed within hours, and Hitler was subsequently arrested and tried for treason. Sentenced to five years in prison, he served only one but used this time to dictate Mein Kampf, a manifesto outlining his extremist ideology and future plans for Germany. Though the Beer Hall Putsch was a tactical failure, it marked a significant turning point for Hitler and the Nazi Party. The publicity surrounding Hitler's trial and imprisonment gave him a national platform, which he used to spread his message and gain a wider following. The failed coup illustrated both the fragility of the Weimar Republic and the determination of extremist groups to challenge democratic governance in Germany, foreshadowing the political upheaval that would follow in the coming years.A federal judge has once again dismissed claims seeking to hold Mark Zuckerberg personally responsible in multiple lawsuits accusing Meta and other social media companies of causing addictive behavior in children. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that the updated complaints failed to meet the legal standards required to establish Zuckerberg's individual liability. While this ruling removes Zuckerberg as an individual defendant, it does not affect the ongoing claims against Meta as a company. Plaintiffs argue that Zuckerberg ignored internal warnings from Meta employees regarding the potential dangers of Instagram and Facebook for younger users, allegedly concealing this information from the public.Corporate law traditionally shields CEOs from personal liability, making it challenging to hold Zuckerberg accountable without clear evidence of direct involvement. Judge Rogers noted that, although future evidence might reveal more direct actions by Zuckerberg, the present allegations do not meet the threshold for corporate officer liability. This legal action is part of a broader litigation effort, involving over 1,000 lawsuits by families and school districts in California against Meta, Google, ByteDance, and Snap, alleging similar harms related to social media addiction among adolescents.Zuckerberg Avoids Personal Liability in Meta Addiction SuitsA federal judge in New York dismissed a copyright lawsuit brought by news outlets Raw Story and AlterNet against OpenAI, ruling that the plaintiffs had not shown a concrete injury. The outlets argued that OpenAI unlawfully used their articles to train its AI models, including ChatGPT, and violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by removing copyright management information (CMI) from the articles, such as author names and copyright notices. However, U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon determined that removing CMI alone, without further dissemination or significant harm, did not meet the required threshold for legal standing under the DMCA.Judge McMahon permitted the plaintiffs to submit an amended complaint but expressed skepticism about their ability to present a valid claim. According to McMahon, the real issue seemed to be the uncompensated use of the articles for training purposes rather than the removal of CMI. Although Raw Story and AlterNet attorney Matt Topic stated confidence in addressing the court's concerns through amendments, McMahon warned that the case might lack a viable legal theory under current copyright laws. This lawsuit aligns with a broader wave of legal actions from media, authors, and artists who are challenging AI companies over the use of copyrighted material in model training. In a related development, The New York Times filed a similar lawsuit against OpenAI in December, marking the first major challenge from a media outlet over AI training practices.OpenAI Defeats Raw Story Copyright, Training Lawsuit, for NowOpenAI defeats news outlets' copyright lawsuit over AI training, for now | ReutersA federal judge in Texas has struck down President Biden's immigration program aimed at providing a citizenship path for certain undocumented immigrants married to U.S. citizens. The "Keeping Families Together" initiative, announced in June, targeted approximately 500,000 individuals but faced immediate legal challenges from Texas and several Republican-led states. U.S. District Judge J. Campbell Barker ruled that the program overstepped Biden's executive authority, leaving it blocked as Biden's term nears its end.The initiative has been a focal point in the political landscape, with immigration considered a top priority issue. Former President Donald Trump, who defeated Vice President Kamala Harris in the recent election, is expected to implement strict immigration policies, including potential rollbacks of Biden's program. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll indicates that Americans expect Trump to prioritize immigration enforcement, with many anticipating large-scale deportations. While the Biden administration could appeal the ruling, the White House has not yet commented on potential next steps.US judge rules against Biden legalization program for immigrant spouses | ReutersA federal judge has warned Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor and attorney for Donald Trump, that he could be held in civil contempt if he doesn't comply with a court order to surrender certain assets. Giuliani was ordered in October to turn over property, including his Manhattan apartment and other valuables, to Ruby Freeman and her daughter Shaye Moss, two Georgia election workers whom he defamed. Freeman and Moss won a $148 million judgment against Giuliani after a jury found he had spread false accusations that they helped rig the 2020 election.Judge Lewis Liman expressed frustration with Giuliani's delays, giving him until next week to meet the court's demands. The plaintiffs' attorney, Aaron Nathan, suggested Giuliani may be shifting assets to avoid collection, including opening new bank accounts and forming a new LLC. Giuliani, meanwhile, claims he is cooperating and accused the plaintiffs of being vindictive, citing their attempt to seize a family heirloom watch. Judge Liman dismissed that argument, affirming that the heirloom was still subject to seizure under the law.Giuliani recently filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, but his case was dismissed after he failed to disclose his full financial situation, removing his legal protections from creditors. This comes as Giuliani faces broader legal challenges, including disbarment and criminal charges related to efforts to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia and Arizona.US judge threatens Rudy Giuliani with contempt in election workers' case | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Antonín Dvořák.This week's closing theme is Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A Major, Op. 81, one of the most beloved chamber works in the Romantic repertoire. Composed in 1887, this quintet exemplifies Dvořák's talent for weaving Czech folk music elements into classical forms, creating a vibrant work filled with expressive melodies and rhythmic vitality. Dvořák had already achieved international acclaim by this time, and his music was celebrated for its distinctive blend of Slavic folk traditions and classical elegance. In this quintet, he masterfully combines lyrical beauty with an earthy, folk-inspired character, making it both accessible and profoundly moving.The piece opens with an Allegro ma non tanto, which means “fast, but not too much,” where a lush cello theme sets a warm and expansive mood that's developed between the strings and piano. The second movement, a Dumka, draws on a traditional Slavic musical form that alternates between melancholic and lively sections, allowing for both introspection and joy. Dvořák contrasts this with a lively Furiant for the third movement, featuring energetic cross-rhythms that mimic Czech dance patterns, adding excitement and rhythmic playfulness.The quintet closes with a spirited Finale, where Dvořák's signature energy and folk influences shine through in a triumphant, sweeping conclusion. Throughout, the dialogue between piano and strings feels rich and conversational, each instrument playing a unique role in the music's storytelling. The Piano Quintet No. 2 captures Dvořák at the height of his compositional powers, blending technical mastery with deep national pride and an unmistakable Romantic warmth. It's an ideal selection to end the week on a vibrant and emotionally rich note, as Dvořák's music reminds us of the beauty in blending tradition with innovation.Without further ado, Antonín Dvořák's Piano Quintet No. 2 in A Major, Op. 81, enjoy.  This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Forking: Ein Grundpfeiler von Open Source mit eigenen HerausforderungenDas tolle an Open Source? Man hat das Recht, die Software zu modifizieren und auch in ihrer modifizierten Form zu verbreiten. Wenn man plant, das Open Source Projekt zu modifizieren und unabhängig von seiner Ursprungsform weiterzuentwickeln, nennt man dies Fork bzw. Forking. Das klingt erstmal super und nach viel Freiheit. Doch Forking hat ganz eigene Herausforderungen.In dieser Episode klären wir, was Forks sind, welche populären Forks es in der Geschichte von Open Source gegeben hat und was die Motivation dieser Forks war, welche Projekt-Forks es nicht zur Popularität geschafft haben, warum Forking auch als Druckmittel genutzt werden kann und warum es eine Art Grundrecht auf GitHub ist, welche (oft unsichtbaren) Herausforderungen Forking mit sich bringt und klären, was das Urheberrecht und der Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) aus den USA damit auf sich hat..Bonus: Bei Debian hieß der Firefox Browser mal Iceweasel.Unsere aktuellen Werbepartner findest du auf https://engineeringkiosk.dev/partners Das schnelle Feedback zur Episode:

Movie piracy has hurt the pockets of every filmmaker. But indie filmmakers are often affected worse. Today on the show we have Evan Zeisel and he has been systematically tracking down piracy sites for years. Ten years ago, Evan made his first feature film and landed a distributor. Within a week of being on its first VOD site, his film was already popping up on numerous piracy sites.  He quickly learned through rigorous research to combat piracy and copyright infringement through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, of 1998.Basically, the DMCA instrument protects copyright holders from piracy or infringement and it protects the First Amendment of users who, unknowing of the illegality, uses copyrighted contents online for commercial purposes. How do you counter online piracy and what is the DMCA?The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a U.S. law enacted in 1998 in an effort to combat piracy while also protecting freedom of speech. The pitfall of the DMCA is that in order to “protect” free speech, it notes that any content put online is considered not to be copyright infringement unless the copyright holder, or representative thereof, directly informs the site or the individual who posted the content that the content is indeed copyrighted.After being informed, the site has “a reasonable amount of time” (deemed 48-72 hours, by de facto enforcement by the courts) to remove the content before it is considered to be an illegal act. What this means is that a content creator needs to find every occurrence of infringement on the Internet and then find the site's contact information, or Web Host/ISP's contact information, and send a very specifically formatted letter (as defined by the DMCA) to that contact, before it will ever be considered needed to be taken down.Once received, if the content is not removed, then the content creator can use the Violation Notice sent, and a screenshot of the piracy, as a basis for legal action.The issue is, attorneys cost money and there is an endless number of sites pirating content, so for the standard copyright holder taking legal action would be a Sisyphean act, costing them endless time and money, only to run up against pirates that hide behind fake email addresses and false contact information. A lot has changed in the computer and Internet world in the last 20+ years since the DMCA was enacted.Evan dissects in this interview the technicalities in reclaiming copyright, contacting violators, the language, or must-mentions required by the act. Evan tackles the mechanical challenges of tracking down his contents on piracy sites through an automated system, Copyright Slap, curated with help from a friend of his with a coding background, to efficiently contact these sites and have contents taken down in seconds. To date, they have identified the 1946 sites and taken down 6212.Every filmmaker, big and small deals with online piracy. Hopefully, this episode can help.Enjoy my conversation with Evan Zeisel.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/bulletproof-screenwriting-podcast--2881148/support.

This week's guest is the CEO of Team Odeon, Ori Zilbershtein. With a diverse background in business spending development, marketing technology, and SEO, Ori specializes in finding ways to elevate those around him. In this episode, we dive into Google's Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Learn how the DMCA can be exploited by competitors to destroy your business rankings. We discuss the problem as a whole and evaluate potential solutions Google could put in place to stop this scam from hurting so many websites this week on the EDGE of the Web! Key Segments: [00:00:58] Introducing Ori Zilbershtein  [00:09:38] What is the DMCA?  [00:21:01] EDGE of the Web Title Sponsor: Site Strategics [00:22:29] Does DMCA manipulation hurt the reputation of Google?  [00:26:27] Why in the world is Google letting outsiders move the pin on a Business Profile? [00:30:18] EDGE of The Web Sponsor: Wix  [00:37:03] Final Pieces of Advice Thanks to Our Sponsors! Site Strategics: http://edgeofthewebradio.com/site Wix: http://edgeofthewebradio.com/wix Follow Our Guest Twitter: https://x.com/OriZilbershtein LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/orizilbershtein Resources Team Odeon Whitespark Google DMCA Report

Send us a Text Message.Debbie Reynolds, “The Data Diva” talks to Rex M Lee, Tech Journalist, Security Advisor, My Smart Privacy. We discuss his career in the cellular phone industry, detailing his involvement in developing Houdini Soft, a platform that allowed unlocking and reprovisioning of devices. He discusses the legal battles and controversies surrounding the platform, emphasizing its role in empowering consumers to have control over their devices. Additionally, he connects the platform's relevance to cybersecurity and its impact on the industry's landscape, shedding light on the challenges and the consumer rights upheld in the 2009 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) ruling. Furthermore, he delves into the broader implications of surveillance capitalism and data mining in the tech industry, highlighting the role of operating systems in supporting these technologies.Rex Lee delves into the historical progression of operating systems, tracing the shift from iPods to smartphones and the implications for user surveillance. He emphasized the role of pre-installed apps in data collection and the subsequent adoption of a targeted advertising business model rooted in surveillance capitalism by major companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. Furthermore, he illustrates how these companies control global access to Internet trade and commerce, leading to centralization. Debbie Reynolds contributes to the discussion by highlighting the data collection capabilities of unused apps on phones, underscoring the far-reaching impact of surveillance practices. Rex Lee passionately discusses the exploitation of privacy, security, and civil liberties in the digital age, emphasizing the need for an electronic bill of rights to address these concerns. He advocated for individuals to have control over their personal information and opposed surveillance capitalism business practices, calling for the abolition of contracts of adhesion. Debbie Reynolds agrees with Lee's perspectives and appreciates the insights shared, acknowledging the importance of the discussion on privacy and security in the digital era. The conversation also touched on their professional backgrounds and, a mutual appreciation for each other's work, and his wish for privacy in the future.Support the Show.

Bad Bunny presentó una demanda en contra de un fanático llamado Eric Guillermo Madronal Garrone que grabó en alta calidad y subió a YouTube videos de sus conciertos sin su permiso. La demanda por infracción a los derechos de autor es bajo la Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/seedcademy/message

“The proliferation of pirated ‘free' porn has saturated the Internet, creating a lower perceived value of adult content with less income for studios — this makes running a sustainable business difficult, especially for new directors who might not yet have a loyal audience base. Here's a few ways to prevent piracy and protect your work: Make it as easy as possible to pay for porn. This means everything from making sure you're promoting your films (with working links!) to offering your content on a variety of platforms. The easier it is to purchase, the less invested someone will be to seek it out for free. If you want to make your work accessible to folks with low income, consider offering a trade in exchange for volunteer work. (Industry secret: reviewing porn is a great way to get free access, and provide helpful promotion for filmmakers. But remember, the best way to support your favorite pornographer is with your wallet.) Make it as hard as possible to rip your movies. If possible, avoid downloads and DVDs in favor of streaming content. (If you're wondering why PinkLabel has a permanent streaming library instead of digital downloads, this is why! We strive to protect our studios against piracy.) Seek out pirated copies of your work. Create Google Alerts with your name and film title, and periodically browse tube sites. You can also try searching for your own films using other search engines, and utilize image and video searches, including words like ‘free,' ‘tube,' and ‘download.' Torrent sites are less damaging than tube sites where the majority of people seek free porn. (Be careful of malware!) Issue takedowns. When you find your work pirated, report the URL to your attorney. If you don't have a lawyer, you can use a DMCA template to request your content be removed. (The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a US copyright law that protects intellectual property.) You can find the owner or contact information in the footer of the site, or otherwise by using a Who Is look-up. Some companies like TakeDownPiracy also provide this service. (A tip: PinkLabel filmmaker Nikki Silver (NaughtyNatural) shares that it can help to hire a friend to look for your pirated work as it can be emotionally upsetting. Great advice!) #PayForYourPorn! Participate with the online campaign and educate your viewers about the damaging nature of piracy for producers and performers. Encourage the promotion of affiliate links for your cast and crew, so that everyone prospers from each sale.” -https://pinklabel.tv/on-demand/5-ways-to-protect-your-adult-film-from-porn-piracy/#. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/antonio-myers4/support

Guest Karen Sandler Panelist Richard Littauer Show Notes Hello and welcome to Sustain! Richard is in Portland at FOSSY, the Free and Open Source Software Yearly conference that is held by the Software Freedom Conservancy. In this episode, Richard is joined by Karen Sandler, Executive Director at Software Freedom Conservancy. Today, they discuss the various aspects of organizing a conference, emphasizing ethical considerations, precautions taken, software freedom, community involvement, GNOME pronunciation, and highlight community contributions and the balance between using open source and proprietary software. They explore topics like DRM, exemptions, coordination on renewals, the challenge of “trafficking provision,” and the global influence of U.S. law. Hit download now to hear more! [00:00:35] Karen discusses the challenges of organizing the conference but praises her staff. [00:01:18] Richard and Karen discuss conference inspiration, focus on software freedom, and avoiding corporate noise. There's an overview of talks and speakers, and a discussion on the correct pronunciation of “GNOME.” [00:03:46] Karen mentions attending the keynote session, Red Hat Enterprise Linux, and reflects on the complexity of organizing with ethical considerations. [00:04:22] Richard asks Karen if there's any controversies she's had to weather at the conference, and she talks about COVID precautions, collaboration with charities, ethical practices in organizing, and how high school students have contributed to the event's success. [00:06:53] Richard questions Karen about the balance between using open source and proprietary software for practicality. Karen emphasizes the need for thoughtful decisions about using proprietary software, reflecting on the realistic choices to ensure software freedom. [00:09:14] Karen mentions having a nice coffee chat session with Kyle Wiens, and working together on 1201 materials, referring to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). She further discusses about how the 1201 provision affects people. [00:11:27] The conversation takes a shift to discussing the trafficking term. They begin discussing potential legislation and the frustrations around applying for limited exemptions. [00:12:28] Richard questions why they focus so much on U.S. law instead of working in a country without restrictive laws. Karen explains the global impact of the U.S. law and how other countries often follow suit. [00:14:15] They discuss the lobbying impact of big companies and how they can influence laws even in small countries. Also, Karen shares being grateful for the ability to criticize and work within the system, the idea of working in another place, and the need for a global movement. [00:15:25] Find out where you can learn more about Software Freedom Conservancy and Karen. Links SustainOSS (https://sustainoss.org/) SustainOSS Twitter (https://twitter.com/SustainOSS?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) SustainOSS Discourse (https://discourse.sustainoss.org/) podcast@sustainoss.org (mailto:podcast@sustainoss.org) SustainOSS Mastodon (https://mastodon.social/tags/sustainoss) Open Collective-SustainOSS (Contribute) (https://opencollective.com/sustainoss) Richard Littauer Twitter (https://twitter.com/richlitt?lang=en) Karen Sandler Twitter (https://twitter.com/o0karen0o?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor) Software Freedom Conservancy (https://sfconservancy.org/) Open OSS (https://openoss.sourceforge.net/) GNOME (https://www.gnome.org/) Digital Millennium Copyright Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act) Credits Produced by Richard Littauer (https://www.burntfen.com/) Edited by Paul M. Bahr at Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Show notes by DeAnn Bahr Peachtree Sound (https://www.peachtreesound.com/) Special Guest: Karen Sandler.

On this day in history, August 30, 1967 Thurgood Marshall was confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, becoming the first African-American to be seated on the court. Thurgood Marshall was a pioneering American civil rights lawyer and jurist, serving as the first African-American associate justice on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1967 to 1991. Before his time on the bench, he was a leading attorney for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, where he played a crucial role in the fight against racial segregation in American public schools. His most notable achievement came with the landmark 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, which declared segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Marshall was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Lyndon B. Johnson, and he was known for his liberal views, often dissenting as the Court shifted to a more conservative stance.Born and educated in Baltimore, Maryland, Marshall was mentored by Charles Hamilton Houston at Howard University School of Law. Together with Houston, he worked on several significant civil rights cases, eventually succeeding him as the special counsel of the NAACP. In 1961, he was appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by President John F. Kennedy and later served as the U.S. Solicitor General before his Supreme Court appointment.Throughout his tenure, Marshall was known for his pragmatic jurisprudence and his "sliding-scale" approach to the Equal Protection Clause, advocating for a flexible balancing test. He was a fervent opponent of the death penalty and supported a broad interpretation of constitutional protections, including First Amendment rights and abortion rights. Marshall retired in 1991 and was succeeded by Clarence Thomas; he passed away in 1993.An investor in AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., Rose Izzo, is seeking a financial reward for her role in reducing legal fees in a recent settlement concerning the conversion of AMC's APE preferred units into common stock. Izzo argues that her legal team should receive $650,000 for convincing a Delaware judge to award only about $7 million in fees to the lawyers representing the pension fund and individual investor in the case, instead of the $20 million they had initially sought. This legal skirmish is the latest chapter in a contentious battle over AMC's APE units, which were created to raise new equity capital without increasing the company's authorized share limit.AMC's stock price has plummeted nearly 80% since the settlement was approved on August 11. Izzo claims that her efforts saved the company $13 million, as the judge decided to base the 12% fee award on the post-conversion stock price, as she had recommended. The case originally began when a pension fund and other shareholders opposed allowing APE holders to vote on AMC's recapitalization proposals. The settlement aimed to address these objections by offering one extra class A share for every 7.5 held, valuing the deal at around $110 million to $120 million, depending on AMC's volatile stock price.Vice Chancellor Morgan T. Zurn initially rejected the deal but later approved a revised settlement, causing fluctuations in AMC's stock and the value of APE units. Izzo's role has been considered unusual due to the involvement of "meme stock" investors, who have been vocal about their concerns regarding stock dilution and market manipulation. Izzo and her legal team have faced significant online harassment, which they argue justifies their requested financial reward. The case continues to be a focal point of legal and financial scrutiny, with a new lawsuit filed by an APE holder challenging the settlement for diluting the value of preferred units.AMC Settlement Objector Seeks Fees Over Collapsing Stock PriceA pension fund has filed a lawsuit against Peter Thiel and other board members of Palantir Technologies Inc., accusing them of making billions through insider trading while artificially inflating the company's stock price. The suit also targets Palantir's president Stephen Cohen and CEO Alex Karp, alleging that they led the company into risky investments with special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) for personal gain. According to the complaint, many of these SPACs had unrealistic business plans and were doomed to fail. The lawsuit claims that Thiel and others were motivated to keep Palantir's stock price high to maximize their returns through stock options.The suit alleges that these actions led to a stock crash, resulting in $272 million in losses for Palantir due to the failure of its SPAC investments. Before the crash, Thiel, Karp, and Cohen reportedly made over $1.5 billion by selling shares at inflated prices. Other company leaders allegedly made around $700 million. The lawsuit states that these SPAC deals were closely tied to Palantir's public debut in September 2020 and were part of a larger scheme to inflate the stock price, which also involved misleading investors about the sustainability of government contracts.The complaint notes that out of the 28 SPACs Palantir invested in, five have declared bankruptcy, one has been delisted, and several others have either failed to go public or were taken private again. The lawsuit is a shareholder derivative claim, meaning any damages awarded would go into Palantir's corporate coffers. The suit mirrors securities fraud claims already facing Palantir in a federal court in Denver, exposing the company to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in additional liability. The lawsuit was filed by the Central Laborers' Pension Fund and eight individual investors.If you're wondering where you've heard of Peter Thiel before, it might be me. Peter Thiel is an entrepreneur, investor, and co-founder of companies like PayPal and Palantir. Earlier this year I wrote a column about his utilizing Roth IRAs to amass significant wealth, specifically by converting a $2,000 investment in 1999 into $5 billion by 2027. Thiel managed this by purchasing undervalued stock options in startups, leveraging his unique access to these investment opportunities. His case has highlighted the capacity for high earners to exploit Roth IRAs far beyond their intended use as retirement savings for the middle class, sparking discussions on reforming the tax code. Now, it seems, he is facing accusations of insider trading. Palantir SPAC Spree Draws Insider Trading Lawsuit Against ThielRoth IRAs Have Transformed Into Big Tax Shelters for the WealthyGrayscale Investments LLC has secured a significant legal victory in its effort to launch a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), potentially opening the door for billions of dollars in retail investments. The win came against the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in a three-judge appeals panel in Washington. The SEC has generally only approved crypto ETFs based on futures, citing them as safer, but is now reviewing this latest decision. The ruling is seen as a setback for SEC Chair Gary Gensler's efforts to regulate the crypto industry more tightly.Following the news, Grayscale's Bitcoin Trust saw a rally of up to 21%, and Bitcoin itself surged by as much as 8.3%. Grayscale argues that converting to an ETF would unlock billions in value for its $16.2 billion trust by making it easier to create and redeem shares. The current closed-end structure of the trust does not allow for share redemption when prices fall, leading to steep discounts to its underlying Bitcoin value.This ruling marks the SEC's second recent high-profile court defeat regarding its stance on cryptocurrencies. The agency is also contesting a federal judge's ruling that Ripple Labs' XRP tokens are not securities. Grayscale's victory could have a broad impact, as several major financial institutions have recently filed applications to launch Bitcoin ETFs.Grayscale called the decision a "monumental step forward for American investors." Analysts see the ruling as adding momentum to the digital asset industry, especially following the Ripple case. The SEC had initially rejected Grayscale's proposal in 2022, arguing that a Bitcoin-based ETF lacked sufficient oversight for fraud detection. Grayscale sued the SEC, accusing it of discriminatory treatment.The court found that Grayscale had provided "substantial evidence" that its product was similar to approved Bitcoin futures ETFs. The SEC now has 45 days to ask for a full review by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, and if declined, 90 days to petition the U.S. Supreme Court.Crypto Scores Landmark US Legal Win With Grayscale ETF RulingA U.S. judge is set to consider the sentencing of two former leaders of the right-wing group Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio and Ethan Nordean, who were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other crimes related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. Prosecutors are recommending 33 years in prison for Tarrio and 27 years for Nordean, exceeding the longest sentence given so far for the Capitol assault. The attack aimed to prevent Congress from certifying President Joe Biden's election win. Prosecutors are also seeking a terrorism enhancement for the sentences, which could add approximately 15 years to each term.More than 1,000 people have been arrested in connection with the Capitol attack, with at least 570 pleading guilty and 78 convicted at trial. The riot resulted in five deaths, including a police officer, and injuries to over 140 police officers, along with millions of dollars in damage to the Capitol. Special Counsel Jack Smith has charged former President Donald Trump for attempting to remain in power unlawfully.Attorneys for Tarrio and Nordean are opposing the terrorism enhancement, arguing that their clients' actions should not be equated with acts like the Oklahoma City bombing. Tarrio was not present in Washington, D.C., during the attack but is accused of directing it from Baltimore. The case has had a significant emotional impact on Capitol Police, as described in a letter submitted to the court. Sentencing for two other defendants, Joseph Biggs and Zachary Rehl, is due on Thursday, with prosecutors seeking 33 and 30 years respectively. A fifth defendant, Dominic Pezzola, faces a recommended 20-year sentence.Ex-Proud Boys leaders face sentencing for Jan. 6 attack on U.S. CapitolA study at the University of Minnesota found that low-performing law students improved their exam scores when using artificial intelligence, specifically GPT-4, while high-performing students saw a decline in their scores. Researchers compared the final exam scores of 48 students in two law courses. The students first took exams without AI assistance and then took different exams using GPT-4. The study found that GPT-4 significantly improved student performance on multiple-choice questions, with a 29 percentage-point improvement overall and a 45 percentage-point increase for low-performing students.However, GPT-4 did not help students on the essay portions of the exams. High-performing students actually scored about 20 percentage points lower when using the AI. The study suggests that AI could have an equalizing effect in the legal profession by mitigating inequalities between elite and non-elite lawyers.The study's lead researcher, Daniel Schwarcz, speculated that high-performing students might have become lazier or less inclined to use their legal reasoning skills when assisted by AI. He noted that once an issue is framed by someone else, or in this case, something else like AI, it can affect the cognitive mindset for independent assessment. Schwarcz also suggested that AI's impact within the legal profession would most likely affect paralegals and younger attorneys, as some of their tasks could be automated.These law students got to use AI on final exams. How'd they do? | ReutersiFixit, known for its teardowns and repair guides, is petitioning the U.S. government to allow it to create parts for fixing McDonald's notoriously unreliable ice cream machines. The company purchased the same model of ice cream machine used by McDonald's and found that despite having "easily replaceable parts," the machine could only be repaired by its manufacturer, Taylor, due to an agreement with McDonald's. iFixit is facing legal hurdles because of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which prevents circumventing digital locks to access copyrighted works.To address this, iFixit and nonprofit Public Knowledge have filed for an exemption to the DMCA specifically for ice cream machines. iFixit has previously won such exemptions for products like Xboxes, tractors, and smartphones. However, even if the exemption is granted, iFixit won't be able to distribute a tool for fixing the machines under current law.Therefore, iFixit is also urging Congress to reintroduce the Freedom to Repair Act, which would make it legal to bypass software locks for the purpose of repair. If these changes are implemented, the days of broken McDonald's ice cream machines could be numbered.iFixit wants Congress to let it hack McDonald's ice cream machines - The Verge Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Récemment, un projet intitulé GPT4free a commencé à faire parler de lui sur internet. L'initiative permet en effet d'utiliser GPT-4, la dernière mise à jour du modèle de langage de ChatGPT totalement gratuitement, en s'appuyant sur une faille. En somme, plus besoin de souscrire à l'abonnement payant de ChatGPT Plus.Sans surprise, le projet a été mal reçu par OpenAI. Xtekky de son pseudo, l'étudiant en informatique derrière ce projet, révèle avoir reçu un avertissement de la part de la start-up. L'entreprise lui a donné cinq jours pour mettre un terme à GPT4free, sans quoi elle entamera des poursuites devant les tribunaux. Pour se défendre, Xtekky fait valoir que GPT4free n'exploite pas directement l'interface de programmation d'application d'OpenAI, mais s'appuie sur les interfaces mises à disposition des clients de la start-up. En clair, ce sont ces entreprises qui payent la facture pour les utilisateurs de GPT4free. Un outil comme GPT4free représente donc une perte d'argent pour les clients d'OpenAI, qui cherchent à surfer sur le boom de l'intelligence artificielle générative. Conscient du problème, Xtekky encourage toutes les sociétés concernées à prendre contact avec lui, et s'engage à cesser l'exploitation de l'interface de programmation de celle-ci en cas de demande.Au-delà de ça, l'étudiant en informatique incite surtout les sociétés à sécuriser leurs interfaces de programmation. Il affirme avoir conseillé des mesures de sécurité dans ce sens à toutes les firmes ayant pris contact avec lui, mais aucune d'entre elles n'aurait pris la moindre mesure pour combler la brèche d'après lui. Comme le précise Xtekky, GPT4free n'est pas le seul outil en mesure d'exploiter la faille des interfaces de programmation.Malgré la pression exercée par OpenAI, l'étudiant ne prévoit pas d'enterrer son projet pour le moment. Si la start-up veut absolument que le code de GPT4free disparaisse, elle doit soumettre une requête « Digital Millennium Copyright Act » (DMCA), une loi américaine qui protège les droits d'auteur en ligne, auprès de Github où est hébergé le code du projet… Une mesure qui n'empêchera cependant pas d'autres développeurs d'utiliser l'outil ou d'exploiter la faille des interfaces de programmation. Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

Récemment, un projet intitulé GPT4free a commencé à faire parler de lui sur internet. L'initiative permet en effet d'utiliser GPT-4, la dernière mise à jour du modèle de langage de ChatGPT totalement gratuitement, en s'appuyant sur une faille. En somme, plus besoin de souscrire à l'abonnement payant de ChatGPT Plus. Sans surprise, le projet a été mal reçu par OpenAI. Xtekky de son pseudo, l'étudiant en informatique derrière ce projet, révèle avoir reçu un avertissement de la part de la start-up. L'entreprise lui a donné cinq jours pour mettre un terme à GPT4free, sans quoi elle entamera des poursuites devant les tribunaux. Pour se défendre, Xtekky fait valoir que GPT4free n'exploite pas directement l'interface de programmation d'application d'OpenAI, mais s'appuie sur les interfaces mises à disposition des clients de la start-up. En clair, ce sont ces entreprises qui payent la facture pour les utilisateurs de GPT4free. Un outil comme GPT4free représente donc une perte d'argent pour les clients d'OpenAI, qui cherchent à surfer sur le boom de l'intelligence artificielle générative. Conscient du problème, Xtekky encourage toutes les sociétés concernées à prendre contact avec lui, et s'engage à cesser l'exploitation de l'interface de programmation de celle-ci en cas de demande. Au-delà de ça, l'étudiant en informatique incite surtout les sociétés à sécuriser leurs interfaces de programmation. Il affirme avoir conseillé des mesures de sécurité dans ce sens à toutes les firmes ayant pris contact avec lui, mais aucune d'entre elles n'aurait pris la moindre mesure pour combler la brèche d'après lui. Comme le précise Xtekky, GPT4free n'est pas le seul outil en mesure d'exploiter la faille des interfaces de programmation. Malgré la pression exercée par OpenAI, l'étudiant ne prévoit pas d'enterrer son projet pour le moment. Si la start-up veut absolument que le code de GPT4free disparaisse, elle doit soumettre une requête « Digital Millennium Copyright Act » (DMCA), une loi américaine qui protège les droits d'auteur en ligne, auprès de Github où est hébergé le code du projet… Une mesure qui n'empêchera cependant pas d'autres développeurs d'utiliser l'outil ou d'exploiter la faille des interfaces de programmation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Capitol Hill hearings featuring TikTok's CEO lead off episode 450 of the Cyberlaw Podcast. The CEO handled the endless stream of Congressional accusations and suspicion about as well as could have been expected.  And it did him as little good as a cynic would have expected. Jim Dempsey and Mark MacCarthy think Congress is moving toward action on Chinese IT products—probably in the form of the bipartisan Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act. But passing legislation and actually doing something about China's IT successes are two very different things. The FTC is jumping into the arena on cloud services, Mark tells us, and it can't escape its DNA—dwelling on possible industry concentration and lock-in and not asking much about the national security implications of knocking off a bunch of American cloud providers when the alternatives are largely Chinese cloud providers. The FTC's myopia means that the administration won't get as much help as it could from the FTC on cloud security measures. I reissue my standard objection to the FTC's refusal to follow the FCC's lead in deferring on national security to executive branch concerns. Mark and I disagree about whether the FTC Act forces the Commission to limit itself to consumer protection. Jim Dempsey reviews the latest AI releases, including Google's Bard, which seems to have many of the same hallucination problems as OpenAI's engines. Jim and I debate what I consider the wacky and unjustified fascination in the press with catching AI engaging in wrong think. I believe it's just a mechanism for justifying the imposition of left-wing values on AI's output —which already scores left/libertarian on 14 of 15 standard tests for identifying ideological affiliation. Similarly, I question the effort to stop AI from hallucinating footnotes in support of its erroneous facts. If ever there were a case for generative AI correction of AI errors, the fake citation problem seems like a natural. Speaking of Silicon Valley's lying problem, Mark reminds us that social media is absolutely immune for user speech, even after it gets notice that the speech is harmful and false. He reminds us of his thoughtful argument in favor of tweaking section 230 to more closely resemble the notice and action obligations found in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). I argue that the DMCA has not so much solved the incentives for overcensoring speech as it has surrendered to them.   Jim introduces us to an emerging trend in state privacy law: bills that industry supports. Iowa's new law is the exemplar; Jim questions whether it will satisfy users in the long run.   I summarize Hachette v. Internet Archive, in which Judge John G. Koeltl delivers a harsh rebuke to internet hippies everywhere, ruling that the Internet Archive violated copyright in its effort to create a digital equivalent to public library lending. The judge's lesson for the rest of us: You might think fair use is a thing, but it's not. Get over it. In quick hits,  I note that the Cyberlaw Podcast scooped WIRED in covering the GSA's lies about the security of login.gov and its later effort to justify those lies by invoking “equity”—currently replacing patriotism as the last resort of scoundrels. And I offer a brief, nostalgic requiem for Toshiba, which is being broken up for scrap by what's left of Japan Inc. Thirty years ago, Toshiba was treated on the Hill like Huawei is today – a scary and unstoppable competitor who threatened the American way of life.  Now, not so much.  Download 450th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

The Capitol Hill hearings featuring TikTok's CEO lead off episode 450 of the Cyberlaw Podcast. The CEO handled the endless stream of Congressional accusations and suspicion about as well as could have been expected.  And it did him as little good as a cynic would have expected. Jim Dempsey and Mark MacCarthy think Congress is moving toward action on Chinese IT products—probably in the form of the bipartisan Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology (RESTRICT) Act. But passing legislation and actually doing something about China's IT successes are two very different things. The FTC is jumping into the arena on cloud services, Mark tells us, and it can't escape its DNA—dwelling on possible industry concentration and lock-in and not asking much about the national security implications of knocking off a bunch of American cloud providers when the alternatives are largely Chinese cloud providers. The FTC's myopia means that the administration won't get as much help as it could from the FTC on cloud security measures. I reissue my standard objection to the FTC's refusal to follow the FCC's lead in deferring on national security to executive branch concerns. Mark and I disagree about whether the FTC Act forces the Commission to limit itself to consumer protection. Jim Dempsey reviews the latest AI releases, including Google's Bard, which seems to have many of the same hallucination problems as OpenAI's engines. Jim and I debate what I consider the wacky and unjustified fascination in the press with catching AI engaging in wrong think. I believe it's just a mechanism for justifying the imposition of left-wing values on AI's output —which already scores left/libertarian on 14 of 15 standard tests for identifying ideological affiliation. Similarly, I question the effort to stop AI from hallucinating footnotes in support of its erroneous facts. If ever there were a case for generative AI correction of AI errors, the fake citation problem seems like a natural. Speaking of Silicon Valley's lying problem, Mark reminds us that social media is absolutely immune for user speech, even after it gets notice that the speech is harmful and false. He reminds us of his thoughtful argument in favor of tweaking section 230 to more closely resemble the notice and action obligations found in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). I argue that the DMCA has not so much solved the incentives for overcensoring speech as it has surrendered to them.   Jim introduces us to an emerging trend in state privacy law: bills that industry supports. Iowa's new law is the exemplar; Jim questions whether it will satisfy users in the long run.   I summarize Hachette v. Internet Archive, in which Judge John G. Koeltl delivers a harsh rebuke to internet hippies everywhere, ruling that the Internet Archive violated copyright in its effort to create a digital equivalent to public library lending. The judge's lesson for the rest of us: You might think fair use is a thing, but it's not. Get over it. In quick hits,  I note that the Cyberlaw Podcast scooped WIRED in covering the GSA's lies about the security of login.gov and its later effort to justify those lies by invoking “equity”—currently replacing patriotism as the last resort of scoundrels. And I offer a brief, nostalgic requiem for Toshiba, which is being broken up for scrap by what's left of Japan Inc. Thirty years ago, Toshiba was treated on the Hill like Huawei is today – a scary and unstoppable competitor who threatened the American way of life.  Now, not so much.  Download 450th Episode (mp3) You can subscribe to The Cyberlaw Podcast using iTunes, Google Play, Spotify, Pocket Casts, or our RSS feed. As always, The Cyberlaw Podcast is open to feedback. Be sure to engage with @stewartbaker on Twitter. Send your questions, comments, and suggestions for topics or interviewees to CyberlawPodcast@steptoe.com. Remember: If your suggested guest appears on the show, we will send you a highly coveted Cyberlaw Podcast mug! The views expressed in this podcast are those of the speakers and do not reflect the opinions of their institutions, clients, friends, families, or pets.

In the conclusion to his podcast interview, IMS Elite Expert Sam Rogers explains the evolution of YouTube content infringement issues, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) “takedown” process, and copyright considerations for cloud-based corporate training programs. Listen above or read the interview transcript below. (Part 3 of 3)

Originally Live: December 5th 2020 It's another record breaking episode! Unfortunately it's not record breaking in the sense of “WE DID SOMETHING AMAZING OMG!”, but more in the sense of Episode 19/Season 02 Episode 09 of The Tally-Ho Show is officially now the longest episode we've ever done as it is 5 hours long! And not only that, this is also the second to last episode before the end of Season 02 as well! Hard to believe we've managed to do 2 seasons of this show & no one has canceled us for being rubbish & unfunny…yet. On this edition of the podcast Andy & James are joined by their good friend TrickyHG as their special guest of the episode. During the topic segments Andy, James & Tricky go over the following: What games did they honestly think deserve a sequel, and which games should never have gotten a sequel in the first place. The past, present & future of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). And are games being put in the Esports scene way too early? With our juicy topics to discuss, killer video game music/gaming remixes to play for you & the return of James's Great Adventure as James jumps back in the Deathtrap Dungeon, we've certainly got a proper good episode for you all to listen to. So what are you waiting for? Climb aboard the HMS Tally-Ho and let us cruise the airwaves for you with Episode 19/Season 02 Episode 09 of The Tally-Ho Show with TrickyHG! Tracks: 00:27 Mario Kart 64 on Club Circuit - Title 04:42 The Urbz: Sims in the City (GBA) - Techno 01:55:53 Sonic The Hedgehog 4: Episode II - Sylvania Castle (Act 1) 01:57:47 SEGA Rally Championship - Getting Muddy 02:35:10 Atomic Bomberman - Inner City Trash 02:39:05 Time Crisis 3 - Showdown 03:47:45 Ace Combat 5: The Unsung War - Razgriz Theme 03:55:02 Wreckfest - Buried Alive 05:30:01 The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild - Epilogue 05:31:46 Donkey Kong Country - The Credits Concerto Artwork Made By La-Nita: Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/crazyhiena Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/crazyhiena Tricky's Socials: TikTok: https://www.tiktok/@trickyhg Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/trickyhg Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/iamtrickyy YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/trickyhg Show Socials: https://www.instagram.com/thetallyhoshow/ | https://www.tiktok.com/@thetallyhoshow | http://www.twitter.com/thetallyhoshow Andy's Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/justsomeandy James's Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/thejamesofallg1 --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/thetallyhoshow/message

Have you started the count down for the end of the school year! I certainly have. But between now and the end of the year, how do I engage my students? In today's episode, I share 3 ways you can engage your students as the end of the school year approaches. Activity Links: Math Lottery by The Teaching Files Scavenger Hunts Budget Project Connect with Me! Read my Blog Scroll my Instagram Join the Facebook Group Email me your questions! © Miss Kuiper's Classroom, LLC All rights reserved by author. This product is to be used by the original downloader only. Copying for more than one teacher, classroom, department, school, or school system is prohibited. This product may not be distributed or displayed digitally for public view. Failure to comply is a copyright infringement and a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Intended for classroom and personal use ONLY. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/solving-for-the-undefined/support

Adult industry lawyer Corey D. Silverstein is the managing and founding member of the Law Offices of Corey D. Silverstein, P.C d/b/a/ Silverstein Legal. Adult industry attorney Corey D. Silverstein has been licensed to practice law by the states of Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, New York, and the District of Columbia. His practice focuses on representing many areas of the law that impact the adult industry. His clientele includes hosting companies, affiliate programs, content producers, payment processors, website operators, dating websites, webcam sites, traffic brokers, affiliates, advertising (ad) networks, social media websites and performers, just to name a few. Corey D. Silverstein regularly provides legal services related to: age verification, record keeping requirements (18 USC 2257), intellectual property (copyrights and trademarks), the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the Restore Online Shopper's Confidence Act (ROSCA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) compliance, first amendment / free speech, obscenity, corporate law, criminal defense, internet law, domain disputes, data privacy and various other areas of the law. Mr. Silverstein is an acclaimed litigator and dispute resolution specialist. His practice also concentrates on complex contracts, business structure, and business formation. Corey D. Silverstein prides himself in providing prompt and aggressive representation tailored to each of his clients' individual needs. Corey D. Silverstein is regularly featured in adult industry periodicals such as AVN, XBIZ, and YNOT, and has been quoted and published in mainstream media including the New York Times, FOX News, MSNBC, the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, the Detroit News and the Associated Press.  

Our guest is a fun one today. Professor Stacey Lantagne, Associate Dean for Faculty Development at the University of Mississippi School of Law will help us understand the law around NFTs - Non-fungible tokens. Professor Stacey Lantagne, https://law.olemiss.edu/faculty-directory/stacey-lantagne/ has been on our show in the past discussing: TickTock 02/02/21 http://inlegalterms.mpbonline.org/episodes/in-legal-terms-tiktok-and-memesProtecting your Intellectual property 041420 http://inlegalterms.mpbonline.org/episodes/in-legal-terms-intellectual-property-during-covid-19Fair use of Intellectual property 121019 http://inlegalterms.mpbonline.org/episodes/in-legal-terms-intellectual-propertyGenetic Testing 091118 http://inlegalterms.mpbonline.org/episodes/5cd2d695f9e59c996625763aIf you're interested in learning more about patents and trademarks: The Mississippi Library Commission was designated as an official Patent & Trademark Resource in 1990 by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office. A wide variety of services are provided from extensive holdings of patent & trademark resources. While the primary users are inventors, attorneys, and researchers, the services are open to the general public. As a patent training and search can take between one and three hours, we recommend you schedule a time to meet with Lawrence Smith, Collection Management Director and Patent Librarian, by emailing him at lsmith@mlc.lib.ms.us or calling 601.432.4120.https://www.mlc.lib.ms.us/ptrc/I'm interested in NFTs – especially when I read an article about how an artists and computer programmer partner paid off their mortgage in 6 hours with their Dasterdly Ducks images. https://www.techtimes.com/articles/271028/20220125/nft-ducks-120-000-six-hours-nft-ducks-designer-home-foreclosure.htmWhat interests you? We'd love to tell you what the law is and you're your rights are concerning that subject. Contact us on the show's email address legalterms@mpbonline.orgNFTs, explained https://www.theverge.com/22310188/nft-explainer-what-is-blockchain-crypto-art-faqWhat are the copyright implications of NFTs? https://www.reuters.com/legal/transactional/what-are-copyright-implications-nfts-2021-10-29/Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) https://www.copyright.gov/dmca/ See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Your fledgling startup has just been sued by one of the most powerful companies in the world. How do you defend yourself?And keep your company afloat?This was the challenge faced by Amanda Gorton, CEO of Corellium, a company whose virtualization platform enables efficient mobile security research and quality testing across a massive variety of devices. Sued by Apple for both copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Amanda was thrust into an exhausting balancing act of defending and running her young business at the same time. In this episode of Security Voices, she shares the details of how she survived and successfully defended her company.Dave and Amanda go beyond the lawsuit and into the tricky territory of companies like Corellium who provide a service whose sales process must be governed by a clear sense of ethics to avoid it falling into the wrong hands. She shares the real world challenges of developing and applying such a policy in a company and while it may be uncomfortable to trust a small company with such a weighty responsibility, they just might be the very best option we have.We explore the complicated nature of DMCA in a world that has changed dramatically since its anti-Napster driven inception back in the late 90s. From the NSA's release of Ghidra to Web3, we muse on the future of the DMCA whose relevance feels to be slipping into the history books.BioAmanda Gorton is co-founder and CEO of Corellium, which provides an Arm-native cloud platform that virtualizes mobile and IoT devices across iOS, Android, and Linux. Corellium enables never-before-possible security research, development, and quality testing of apps, firmware, and hardware on Arm. Previously, Gorton co-founded and was the CEO of security startup Virtual, which was acquired by Citrix in 2014. She earned a degree in classics from Yale University.

On the latest episode of Trending Now - An IP Podcast, Ed White and Janet Cho discuss the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and explain the specific requirements and procedures copyright owners and online service providers must undertake to ensure that they are compliant with the DMCA takedown requirements.

I don't need to disclaim my lack of a law degree when I state the fact that yes, it is legal to play copyrighted music on a podcast so long as the rights to the song have been cleared or the podcaster is following the fair use doctrine.  It's also a fact that podcasters can and do use copyrighted music in their podcasts every single day under the fair use doctrine. According to Professors of Law Patricia Aufderheide and Peter Jaszi, the fair use doctrine applies to commercial music in podcasts.  But what happens when someone takes a different opinion on your assumed fair use? If you're lucky, you'll be forced to removing the music from your episodes. If you're unlucky, you fight it out in court.  A potentially more likely risk: It might get your podcast booted from directories like Spotify, YouTube, and more. And good luck getting in touch with a human at those big tech firms to plead your case.  So… is it worth it? You'll have to answer that for yourself? Will it ever be easy to use commercial music in a podcast? Maybe. I think the excellent work done by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and other copyleft organizations will, eventually, pay off. Now, whether or not that happens soon enough for you to play commercial music in your podcast without fear of de-platforming or court summonses remains to be seen. We're not getting any younger!  ----- Links Mentioned: • Advancing Podcasting -  http://advancingpodcasting.xyz • Palle Bo on Twitter - http://twitter.com/radiovagabond • The Radio Vagabond podcast - https://www.theradiovagabond.com • Fair use and music for your podcast - https://podnews.net/article/fair-use-for-podcasters • Professor of Law Patricia Aufderheide - https://www.american.edu/soc/faculty/paufder.cfm • Professor of Law Peter Jaszi - https://www.wcl.american.edu/community/faculty/profile/jaszi/bio • Section 230 - https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230 • Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) - https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca • Reclaiming Fair Use (book) - https://amzn.to/3iWOYtO • Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) - https://www.eff.org • Copyleft.org - https://copyleft.org • Support Evo on Buy Me A Coffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/evoterra ----- A written-to-be-read article and a full transcript of the audio of this episode can be found at https://podcastpontifications.com/episode/using-music-in-your-podcast-fair-use-or-wise-choice. Visit https://twitter.com/evoterra for more podcasting insights from Evo Terra as they come. Buy him a virtual coffee to show your support at https://BuyMeACoffee.com/evoterra. And if you need a professional in your podcasting corner, please visit https://Simpler.Media to see how Simpler Media Productions can help you reach your business objectives with podcasting. Allie Press assists with the production and transcription of the show. Learn more about Allie at http://alliepress.net. Podcast Pontifications four times a week to provide ideas and ask questions every working podcaster should be thinking about. Subscribe today at https://PodcastPontifications.com. Photo by https://unsplash.com/@adkorte?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText (Adrian Korte) on https://unsplash.com/s/photos/music?utm_source=unsplash&utm_medium=referral&utm_content=creditCopyText (Unsplash) This podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Podsights - https://podsights.com/privacy Support this podcast

The largest global power during the rise of intellectual property was England, so the world adopted her philosophies. The US had the same impact on software law. Most case law that shaped the software industry is based on copyright law. Our first real software laws appeared in the 1970s and now have 50 years of jurisprudence to help guide us. This episode looks at the laws, supreme court cases, and some circuit appeals cases that shaped the software industry. -------- In our previous episode we went through a brief review of how the modern intellectual property laws came to be. Patent laws flowed from inventors in Venice in the 1400s, royals gave privileges to own a monopoly to inventors throughout the rest of Europe over the next couple of centuries, transferred to panels and academies during and after the Age of Revolutions, and slowly matured for each industry as technology progressed.  Copyright laws formed similarly, although they were a little behind patent laws due to the fact that they weren't really necessary until we got the printing press. But when it came to data on a device, we had a case in 1908 we covered in the previous episode that led Congress to enact the 1909 Copyright Act.  Mechanical music boxes evolved into mechanical forms of data storage and computing evolved from mechanical to digital. Following World War II there was an explosion in new technologies, with those in computing funded heavily by US government. Or at least, until we got ourselves tangled up in a very unpopular asymmetrical war in Vietnam. The Mansfield Amendment of 1969, was a small bill in the 1970 Military Authorization Act that ended the US military from funding research that didn't have a direct relationship to a specific military function. Money could still flow from ARPA into a program like the ARPAnet because we wanted to keep those missiles flying in case of nuclear war. But over time the impact was that a lot of those dollars the military had pumped into computing to help develop the underlying basic sciences behind things like radar and digital computing was about to dry up. This is a turning point: it was time to take the computing industry commercial. And that means lawyers. And so we got the first laws pertaining to software shortly after the software industry emerged from more and more custom requirements for these mainframes and then minicomputers and the growing collection of computer programmers. The Copyright Act of 1976 was the first major overhaul to the copyright laws since the 1909 Copyright Act. Since then, the US had become a true world power and much as the rest of the world followed the British laws from the Statute of Anne in 1709 as a template for copyright protections, the world looked on as the US developed their laws. Many nations had joined the Berne Convention for international copyright protections, but the publishing industry had exploded. We had magazines, so many newspapers, so many book publishers. And we had this whole weird new thing to deal with: software.  Congress didn't explicitly protect software in the Copyright Act of 1976. But did add cards and tape as mediums and Congress knew this was an exploding new thing that would work itself out in the courts if they didn't step in. And of course executives from the new software industry were asking their representatives to get in front of things rather than have the unpredictable courts adjudicate a weird copyright mess in places where technology meets copy protection. So in section 117, Congress appointed the National Commission on New Technological Uses of Copyrighted Works, or CONTU) to provide a report about software and added a placeholder in the act that empaneled them. CONTU held hearings. They went beyond just software as there was another newish technology changing the world: photocopying. They presented their findings in 1978 and recommended we define a computer program as a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result. They also recommended that copies be allowed if required to use the program and that those be destroyed when the user no longer has rights to the software. This is important because this is an era where we could write software into memory or start installing compiled code onto a computer and then hand the media used to install it off to someone else.  At the time the hobbyist industry was just about to evolve into the PC industry, but hard disks were years out for most of those machines. It was all about floppies. But up-market there was all kinds of storage and the righting was on the wall about what was about to come. Install software onto a computer, copy and sell the disk, move on. People would of course do that, but not legally.  Companies could still sign away their copyright protections as part of a sales agreement but the right to copy was under the creator's control. But things like End User License Agreements were still far away. Imagine how ludicrous the idea that a piece of software if a piece of software went bad that it could put a company out of business in the 1970s. That would come as we needed to protect liability and not just restrict the right to copy to those who, well, had the right to do so. Further, we hadn't yet standardized on computer languages. And yet companies were building complicated logic to automate business and needed to be able to adapt works for other computers and so congress looked to provide that right at the direction of CONTU as well, if only to the company doing the customizations and not allowing the software to then be resold. These were all hashed out and put into law in 1980. And that's an important moment as suddenly the party who owned a copy was the rightful owner of a piece of software. Many of the provisions read as though we were dealing with book sellers selling a copy of a book, not dealing with the intricate details of the technology, but with technology those can change so quickly and those who make laws aren't exactly technologists, so that's to be expected.  Source code versus compiled code also got tested. In 1982 Williams Electronics v Artic International explored a video game that was in a ROM (which is how games were distributed before disks and cassette tapes. Here, the Third Circuit weighed in on whether if the ROM was built into the machine, if it could be copied as it was utilitarian and therefore not covered under copyright. The source code was protected but what about what amounts to compiled code sitting on the ROM. They of course found that it was indeed protected.  They again weighed in on Apple v Franklin in 1983. Here, Franklin Computer was cloning Apple computers and claimed it couldn't clone the computer without copying what was in the ROMs, which at the time was a remedial version of what we think of as an operating system today.  Franklin claimed the OS was in fact a process or method of operation and Apple claimed it was novel. At the time the OS was converted to a binary language at runtime and that object code was a task called AppleSoft but it was still a program and thus still protected. One and two years later respectively, we got Mac OS 1 and Windows 1. 1986 saw Whelan Associates v Jaslow. Here, Elaine Whelan created a management system for a dental lab on the IBM Series One, in EDL. That was a minicomputer and when the personal computer came along she sued Jaslow because he took a BASIC version to market for the PC. He argued it was a different language and the set of commands was therefore different. But the programs looked structurally similar. She won, as while some literal elements were the same, “the copyrights of computer programs can be infringed even absent copying of the literal elements of the program.” This is where it's simple to identify literal copying of software code when it's done verbatim but difficult to identify non-literal copyright infringement.  But this was all professional software. What about those silly video games all the kids wanted? Well, Atari applied for a copyright for one of their games, Breakout. Here, Register of Copyrights, Ralph Oman chose not to Register the copyright. And so Atari sued, winning in the appeal. There were certainly other dental management packages on the market at the time. But the court found that “copyrights do not protect ideas – only expressions of ideas.” Many found fault with the decision and  the Second Circuit heard Computer Associates v Altai in 1992. Here, the court applied a three-step test of Abstraction-Filtration-Comparison to determine how similar products were and held that Altai's rewritten code did not meet the necessary requirements for copyright infringement. There were other types of litigation surrounding the emerging digital sphere at the time as well. The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act came along in 1986 and would be amended in 89, 94, 96, and 2001. Here, a number of criminal offenses were defined - not copyright but they have come up to criminalize activities that should have otherwise been copyright cases. And the Copyright Act of 1976 along with the CONTU findings were amended to cover the rental market came to be (much as happened with VHS tapes and Congress established provisions to cover that in 1990. Keep in mind that time sharing was just ending by then but we could rent video games over dial-up and of course VHS rentals were huge at the time. Here's a fun one, Atari infringed on Nintendo's copyright by claiming they were a defendant in a case and applying to the Copyright Office to get a copy of the 10NES program so they could actually infringe on their copyright. They tried to claim they couldn't infringe because they couldn't make games unless they reverse engineered the systems. Atari lost that one. But Sega won a similar one soon thereafter because playing more games on a Sega was fair use. Sony tried to sue Connectix in a similar case where you booted the PlayStation console using a BIOS provided by Connectix. And again, that was reverse engineering for the sake of fair use of a PlayStation people payed for. Kinda' like jailbreaking an iPhone, right? Yup, apps that help jailbreak, like Cydia, are legal on an iPhone. But Apple moves the cheese so much in terms of what's required to make it work so far that it's a bigger pain to jailbreak than it's worth. Much better than suing everyone.  Laws are created and then refined in the courts. MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer made it to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1993. This involved Eric Francis leaving MAI and joining Peak. He then loaded MAI's diagnostics tools onto computers. MAI thought they should have a license per computer, but yet Peak used the same disk in multiple computers. The crucial change here was that the copy made, while ephemeral, was decided to be a copy of the software and so violated the copyright. We said we'd bring up that EULA though. In 1996, the Seventh Circuit found in ProCD v Zeidenberg, that the license preempted copyright thus allowing companies to use either copyright law or a license when seeking damages and giving lawyers yet another reason to answer any and all questions with “it depends.” One thing was certain, the digital world was coming fast in those Clinton years. I mean, the White House would have a Gopher page and Yahoo! would be on display at his second inauguration. So in 1998 we got the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Here, Congress added to Section 117 to allow for software copies if the software was required for maintenance of a computer. And yet software was still just a set of statements, like instructions in a book, that led the computer to a given result. The DMCA did have provisions to provide treatment to content providers and e-commerce providers. It also implemented two international treaties and provided remedies for anti-circumvention of copy-prevention systems since by then cracking was becoming a bigger thing. There was more packed in here. We got MAI Systems v Peak Computer reversed by law, refinement to how the Copyright Office works, modernizing audio and movie rights, and provisions to facilitate distance education. And of course the DMCA protected boat hull designs because, you know, might as well cram some stuff into a digital copyright act.  In addition to the cases we covered earlier, we had Mazer v Stein, Dymow v Bolton, and even Computer Associates v Altai, which cemented the AFC method as the means most courts determine copyright protection as it extends to non-literal components such as dialogue and images. Time and time again, courts have weighed in on what fair use is because the boundaries are constantly shifting, in part due to technology, but also in part due to shifting business models.  One of those shifting business models was ripping songs and movies. RealDVD got sued by the MPAA for allowing people to rip DVDs. YouTube would later get sued by Viacom but courts found no punitive damages could be awarded. Still, many online portals started to scan for and filter out works they could know were copy protected, especially given the rise of machine learning to aid in the process. But those were big, major companies at the time. IO Group, Inc sued Veoh for uploaded video content and the judge found Veoh was protected by safe harbor.  Safe Harbor mostly refers to the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, or OCILLA for short, which shields online portals and internet service providers from copyright infringement. This would be separate from Section 230, which protects those same organizations from being sued for 3rd party content uploaded on their sites. That's the law Trump wanted overturned during his final year in office but given that the EU has Directive 2000/31/EC, Australia has the Defamation Act of 2005, Italy has the Electronic Commerce Directive 2000, and lots of other countries like England and Germany have had courts find similarly, it is now part of being an Internet company. Although the future of “big tech” cases (and the damage many claim is being done to democracy) may find it refined or limited. In 2016, Cisco sued Arista for allegedly copying the command line interfaces to manage switches. Cisco lost but had claimed more than $300 million in damages. Here, the existing Cisco command structure allowed Arista to recruit seasoned Cisco administrators to the cause. Cisco had done the mental modeling to evolve those commands for decades and it seemed like those commands would have been their intellectual property. But, Arista hadn't copied the code.  Then in 2017, in ZeniMax vs Oculus, ZeniMax wan a half billion dollar case against Oculus for copying their software architecture.  And we continue to struggle with what copyright means as far as code goes. Just in 2021, the Supreme Court ruled in Google v Oracle America that using application programming interfaces (APIs) including representative source code can be transformative and fall within fair use, though did not rule if such APIs are copyrightable. I'm sure the CP/M team, who once practically owned the operating system market would have something to say about that after Microsoft swooped in with and recreated much of the work they had done. But that's for another episode. And traditional media cases continue. ABS Entertainment vs CBS looked at whether digitally remastering works extended copyright. BMG vs Cox Communications challenged peer-to-peer file-sharing in safe harbor cases (not to mention the whole Napster testifying before congress thing). You certainly can't resell mp3 files the way you could drop off a few dozen CDs at Tower Records, right? Capitol Records vs ReDigi said nope. Perfect 10 v Amazon, Goldman v Breitbart, and so many more cases continued to narrow down who and how audio, images, text, and other works could have the right to copy restricted by creators. But sometimes it's confusing. Dr. Seuss vs ComicMix found that merging Star Trek and “Oh, the Places You'll Go” was enough transformativeness to break the copyright of Dr Seuss, or was that the Fair Use Doctrine? Sometimes I find conflicting lines in opinions. Speaking of conflict… Is the government immune from copyright? Allen v Cooper, Governor of North Carolina made it to the Supreme Court, where they applied blanket copyright protections. Now, this was a shipwreck case but extended to digital works and the Supreme Court seemed to begrudgingly find for the state, and looked to a law as remedy rather than awarding damages. In other words, the “digital Blackbeards” of a state could pirate software at will. Guess I won't be writing any software for the state of North Carolina any time soon! But what about content created by a state? Well, the state of Georgia makes various works available behind a paywall. That paywall might be run by a third party in exchange for a cut of the proceeds. So Public.Resource goes after anything where the edict of a government isn't public domain. In other words, court decision, laws, and statutes should be free to all who wish to access them. The “government edicts doctrine” won in the end and so access to the laws of the nation continue to be free. What about algorithms? That's more patent territory when they are actually copyrightable, which is rare. Gottschalk v. Benson was denied a patent for a new way to convert binary-coded decimals to numerals while Diamond v Diehr saw an algorithm to run a rubber molding machine was patentable. And companies like Intel and Broadcom hold thousands of patents for microcode for chips. What about the emergence of open source software and the laws surrounding social coding? We'll get to the emergence of open source and the consequences in future episodes! One final note, most have never heard of the names in early cases. Most have heard of the organizations listed in later cases. Settling issues in the courts has gotten really, really expensive. And it doesn't always go the way we want. So these days, whether it's Apple v Samsung or other tech giants, the law seems to be reserved for those who can pay for it. Sure, there's the Erin Brockovich cases of the world. And lady justice is still blind. We can still represent ourselves, case and notes are free. But money can win cases by having attorneys with deep knowledge (which doesn't come cheap). And these cases drag on for years and given the startup assembly line often halts with pending legal actions, not many can withstand the latency incurred. This isn't a “big tech is evil” comment as much as “I see it and don't know a better rubric but it's still a thing” kinda' comment. Here's something better that we'd love to have a listener take away from this episode. Technology is always changing. Laws usually lag behind technology change as (like us) they're reactive to innovation. When those changes come, there is opportunity. Not only has the technological advancement gotten substantial enough to warrant lawmaker time, but the changes often create new gaps in markets that new entrants can leverage. Either leaders in markets adapt quickly or see those upstarts swoop in, having no technical debt and being able to pivot faster than those who previously might have enjoyed a first user advantage. What laws are out there being hashed out, just waiting to disrupt some part of the software market today?

Kevin Erickson is the director of the Future of Music Coalition, a Washington DC-based nonprofit supporting a musical ecosystem where artists flourish and are compensated fairly and transparently for their work.FMC works with musicians, composers and industry stakeholders to identify solutions and promote strategies, policies, technologies and educational initiatives that always put artists first while recognizing the role music fans play in shaping the future.In February of this year during a livestream for Blizzcon, Metallica was erroneously censored by Twitch for copyright infringement while performing their own song. This triggered an onslaught of media attention about the nature of censorship, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and Metallica’s decades long fixture in the conversation dating back to they infamous public battle with file-sharing company Napster.In this episode, we sat down with Kevin to get to the bottom of all these issues. We discuss the work being done by the Future of Music Coalition, copyright issues in the modern age, the Twitch controversy, Metallica vs. Napster, clearing up common and pervasive misconceptions and the best ways to support the music you love ethically and responsibly.Fair compensation and transparency for musicians and artists is a deeply personal issue to us as it directly affects our livelihoods. Every day, year in and year out, we see personally and within our community here in Nashville the consequences of how misinformation and apathy surrounding these issues allows large corporations to undervalue and undermine our work. Fascinatingly, Metallica is a thread that has run through these conversations for over two decades. We hope you enjoy this conversation and consider supporting and/or getting involved with The Future of Music Coalition.Make sure to follow the FMC on twitter to keep up with their work, get educated and how you can get involved.TwitterFMC WebsiteIf you think Metal Up Your Podcast has value, please consider taking a brief moment to leave a positive review and subscribe on iTunes  here:https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/metal-up-your-podcast-all-things-metallica/id1187775077You can further support the show by becoming a patron. All patrons of Metal Up Your Podcast at the $5 level receive volumes 1-4 of our Cover Our World Blackened EP's for free. Additionally, patrons are invited to come on the show to talk about any past Metallica show they've been to and are given access to ask our guests like Ray Burton, Halestorm, Michael Wagener, Jay Weinberg of Slipknot and members of Metallica's crew their very own questions. Be a part of what makes Metal Up Your Podcast special by becoming a PATRON here:http://www.patreon.com/metalupyourpodcastJoin the MUYP Discord Server:https://discord.gg/nBUSwR8tPurchase/Stream Lunar Satan:https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/lunarsatan/lunar-satanPurchase/Stream Clint's album VAMPIRE:https://distrokid.com/hyperfollow/clintwells/vampirePurchase/Stream Ethan's album Let It Burn:https://ethanluck.bandcamp.com/album/let-it-burn-2Official Website:http://metalupyourpodcast.comPurchase/Stream our Cover Our World Blackened Volumes and Quarantine Covers:https://metalupyourpodcast.bandcamp.comFollow us on all social media platforms.Write in at:metalupyourpodcastshow@gmail.com

It's time I clear the air for The Gloving Community and their knowledge on The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). I go over everything glovers need to know when it comes to using music for your lightshows or even your comp video submissions that you send in. Have questions not covered in this episode? Ask away on any of my social media! BGM: T O T O R O | Studio Ghibli Lofi Hip Hop Mix - [となりのトトロ] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6iUpJ7MlRI&t=1103s WWG Discord link: https://discord.gg/eEbTmzX6NK Lindsay Ellis' Channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/chezapoctube LegalEagle's Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCpa-Zb0ZcQjTCPP1Dx_1M8Q NoCopyRight Sounds Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_aEa8K-EOJ3D6gOs7HcyNg Support me on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/TheGlovingParadigm/ Like my page on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheGlovingParadigm Follow me on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/muttonchopguy/ Subscribe to my Youtube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxHL8m_Jz84BTOJtRgNW8IQ my discord: (https://discord.gg/S8s9Pyz) #Gloving #EDM #DMCA #NoCopyRight #Tutting #LiquidDancing #Lightshow #Podcast #FlowArts --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/theglovingparadigm/support

Wow! Today my guest is superstar music attorney Dina LaPolt. If you don't know who she is, she is one of the most well respected, well known music attorneys in the world. The amount of awards she has is unfathomable: Hollywood Reporter, Billboard's Power 100, Variety, MIDEM, Recording Academy, GRAMMYs. She's also been the attorney for 2Pac's estate, deadmau5, 21 Savage, Britney Spears, and Steven Tyler. She co-founded Songwriters of North America (SONA) in 2015. They're an advocacy organization representing songwriters. She was also instrumental in getting the Music Modernization Act passed in 2018, which has done wonders for songwriters and artists across the board. The Music Modernization Act was the first major update to copyright law in decades. She regularly advocates for artists, musicians, and songwriters on Capitol Hill. This conversation was fiery. We got into it. I told the challenges that independent artists and songwriters are dealing with and how we rarely get a seat at the table. When drafting new laws, independent musicians need a seat at the table. Dina also talked about what she did with the CARES Act. She made sure musicians and songwriters were included in the CARES Act and HEROES Act. Additionally, she made sure that a mixed earners stipulation was added in the follow-up bill. She described what she's working on right now with the new Administration to make sure that musicians and songwriters don't get left behind.Dina is an absolute rockstar on the business and overall. It was such a pleasure and honor to have her on the show. I know you're gonna love this conversation. She does not hold back! --Quick links:4:57 - About the CARES Act10:55 - Dina breaks down the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and where it's at now21:35 - Major music publishers like UMPG always get the best deal while smaller independent artists get screwed26:58 - What is the solution from the Copyright Office? What is the ask from the music industry? 39:45 - About the Music Licensing Collective (MLC) and how it functions43:56 - How politics gets involved in music activism (and how to communicate with Republicans and Democrats)49:06 - What it means to Dina LaPolt to make it in the new music business --Get involved: Songwriters of North America (SONA): https://www.wearesona.com/Music Artists Coalition (MAC): https://www.musicartistscoalition.com/Black Music Action Coalition (BMAC): https://www.bmacoalition.org/American Association of Independent Music (A2IM): https://a2im.org/--Connect with Ari’s Take:Website: https://aristake.comAcademy: https://aristakeacademy.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/aristake_/TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@aris.takeTwitter: https://twitter.com/ArisTakeYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/aristake1Facebook:

Software Freedom Conservancy filed multiple exemptions in the USA Copyright Office Triennial Rulemaking Process under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In this episode, Karen and Bradley explore the details of Conservancy's filing to request permission to circumvent technological restriction measures in order to investigate infringement of other people's copyright, which is a necessary part of investigations of alleged violations of the GPL and other copyleft licenses. Show Notes: Segment 0 (00:39) Bradley claims that you'll now love the audcast more than ever (02:51) Conservancy filed many exemptions as part of the currently ongoing triennial DMCA Process. (02:50) Segment 1 (04:22) Everyone in the Free Software community wishes the USA's Digital Millennium Copyright Act didn't exist. (05:24) Bradley is currently doing research going to the year 1790 that shows the foundations of the copyright act, but Karen points out that Bradley isn't a professional copyright historian (yet). He points out he is an amateur copyright historian (05:45) DMCA is the USA's implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), but is more a restrictive copyright act than the WCT requires. (06:50) Bradley mentioned that the three videos from the Copyright Office, which are linked to from Conservancy's blog post on the subject that, while they are Copyright Office propaganda, that are helpful to explain the DMCA (10:57): A Legal Overview of § 1201 (PDF slides only). The Triennial Rulemaking Process for §1201 (PDF slides only). Streamlined Petitions for Renewed Exemptions (PDF slides only). Conservancy filed the most exemption requests in the 2020/2021 Rulemaking Process (21:25) Segment 2 (28:07) Conservancy filed an exemption request and a “Long Form” comment in support of it that was labeled “Class 16: Computer Programs &—; Copyright License Investigation” by the Copyright Office (29:00) Bradley mentioned that people can get arrested just for giving talks under the DMCA, referring to Dmitry Sklyarov. Adobe simply called the FBI and got him arrested under DMCA. (38:50) Segment 3 (34:36) If you are a Conservancy Supporter as well as being a FaiFCast listener, you can join this mailing list to receive announcements of live recordings and attend them through Conservancy's Big Blue Button (BBB) server. Send feedback and comments on the cast to . You can keep in touch with Free as in Freedom on our IRC channel, #faif on irc.freenode.net, and by following Conservancy on identi.ca and and Twitter. Free as in Freedom is produced by Dan Lynch of danlynch.org. Theme music written and performed by Mike Tarantino with Charlie Paxson on drums. The content of this audcast, and the accompanying show notes and music are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 4.0 license (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Software Freedom Conservancy filed multiple exemptions in the USA Copyright Office Triennial Rulemaking Process under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In this episode, Karen and Bradley explore the details of Conservancy's filing to request permission to circumvent technological restriction measures in order to investigate infringement of other people's copyright, which is a necessary part of investigations of alleged violations of the GPL and other copyleft licenses. Show Notes: Segment 0 (00:39) Bradley claims that you'll now love the audcast more than ever (02:51) Conservancy filed many exemptions as part of the currently ongoing triennial DMCA Process. (02:50) Segment 1 (04:22) Everyone in the Free Software community wishes the USA's Digital Millennium Copyright Act didn't exist. (05:24) Bradley is currently doing research going to the year 1790 that shows the foundations of the copyright act, but Karen points out that Bradley isn't a professional copyright historian (yet). He points out he is an amateur copyright historian (05:45) DMCA is the USA's implementation of the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), but is more a restrictive copyright act than the WCT requires. (06:50) Bradley mentioned that the three videos from the Copyright Office, which are linked to from Conservancy's blog post on the subject that, while they are Copyright Office propaganda, that are helpful to explain the DMCA (10:57): A Legal Overview of § 1201 (PDF slides only). The Triennial Rulemaking Process for §1201 (PDF slides only). Streamlined Petitions for Renewed Exemptions (PDF slides only). Conservancy filed the most exemption requests in the 2020/2021 Rulemaking Process (21:25) Segment 2 (28:07) Conservancy filed an exemption request and a “Long Form” comment in support of it that was labeled “Class 16: Computer Programs &—; Copyright License Investigation” by the Copyright Office (29:00) Bradley mentioned that people can get arrested just for giving talks under the DMCA, referring to Dmitry Sklyarov. Adobe simply called the FBI and got him arrested under DMCA. (38:50) Segment 3 (34:36) If you are a Conservancy Supporter as well as being a FaiFCast listener, you can join this mailing list to receive announcements of live recordings and attend them through Conservancy's Big Blue Button (BBB) server. Send feedback and comments on the cast to . You can keep in touch with Free as in Freedom on our IRC channel, #faif on irc.freenode.net, and by following Conservancy on on Twitter and and FaiF on Twitter. Free as in Freedom is produced by Dan Lynch of danlynch.org. Theme music written and performed by Mike Tarantino with Charlie Paxson on drums. The content of this audcast, and the accompanying show notes and music are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 4.0 license (CC BY-SA 4.0).

Cory Doctorow joins EFF hosts Cindy Cohn and Danny O'Brien as they discuss how large, established tech companies like Apple, Google, and Facebook can block interoperability in order to squelch competition and control their users, and how we can fix this by taking away big companies' legal right to block new tools that connect to their platforms – tools that would let users control their digital lives. In this episode you'll learn about: How the power to leave a platform is one of the most fundamental checks users have on abusive practices by tech companies—and how tech companies have made it harder for their users to leave their services while still participating in our increasingly digital society; How the lack of interoperability in modern tech platforms is often a set of technical choices that are backed by a legal infrastructure for enforcement, including the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA). This means that attempting to overcome interoperability barriers can come with legal risks as well as financial risks, making it especially unlikely for new entrants to attempt interoperating with existing technology; How online platforms block interoperability in order to silence their critics, which can have real free speech implications; The “kill zone” that exists around existing tech products, where investors will not back tech startups challenging existing tech monopolies, and even startups that can get a foothold may find themselves bought out by companies like Facebook and Google; How we can fix it: The role of “competitive compatibility,” also known as “adversarial interoperability”  in reviving stagnant tech marketplaces; How we can fix it by amending or interpreting the DMCA, CFAA and contract law to support interoperability rather than threaten it. How we can fix it by supporting the role of free and open source communities as champions of interoperability and offering alternatives to existing technical giants. Cory Doctorow (craphound.com) is a science fiction author, activist and journalist. He is the author of many books, most recently ATTACK SURFACE, RADICALIZED and WALKAWAY, science fiction for adults, IN REAL LIFE, a graphic novel; INFORMATION DOESN'T WANT TO BE FREE, a book about earning a living in the Internet age, and HOMELAND, a YA sequel to LITTLE BROTHER. His latest book is POESY THE MONSTER SLAYER, a picture book for young readers. Cory maintains a daily blog at Pluralistic.net. He works for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, is a MIT Media Lab Research Affiliate, is a Visiting Professor of Computer Science at Open University, a Visiting Professor of Practice at the University of North Carolina's School of Library and Information Science and co-founded the UK Open Rights Group. Born in Toronto, Canada, he now lives in Los Angeles. You can find Cory on Twitter at @doctorow. Please subscribe to How to Fix the Internet via RSS, Stitcher, TuneIn, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify or your podcast player of choice. You can also find the Mp3 of this episode on the Internet Archive.  If you have any feedback on this episode, please email podcast@eff.org. A transcript of the episode, as well as legal resources – including links to important cases, books, and briefs discussed in the podcast – is available at https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/podcast-episode-control-over-users-competitors-and-critics.   Audio editing for this episode by Stuga Studios: https://www.stugastudios.com. Music by Nat Keefe: https://natkeefe.com/   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Robodebt SettlementThe federal government agreed on Monday to pay $112 million in compensation, interest and legal costs to up to 430,000 people who were affected by the scheme, which recouped alleged welfare overpayments calculated through a flawed method.Former ABC reporter Ariel Bogle tweeted: Wonder if this is the biggest-ever settlement related to government-by-algorithm, even globally?Another fun reaction from Dan Nolan, Comp Sci ethics courses are going to replace the ariane 5 with robodebt for being an insanely costly disasterat least if they make people do ethics courses anymore… Github brings back youtube-dl The worlds' largest code repo has reinstated youtube-dl.A quick reminder, youtube-dl is an open source tool that allows users to download video from the popular video service, as well as from ABC iView, SBS on Demand, and other streaming platforms. “Today we reinstated youtube-dl, a popular project on GitHub, after we received additional information about the project that enabled us to reverse a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown. “ “Nonetheless, developers who want to push back against unwarranted takedowns may face the risk of taking on personal liability and legal defense costs. To help them, GitHub will establish and donate $1M to a developer defense fund to help protect open source developers on GitHub from unwarranted DMCA Section 1201 takedown claims. Big Sur “Bricking” 2013 and 2014 Macbook ProsmacOS Big Sur Update Bricking Some Older MacBook Pro ModelsA large number of late 2013 and mid 2014 13-inch MacBook Pro owners are reporting that the macOS Big Sur update is bricking their machines. A MacRumors forum thread contains a significant number of users reporting the issue, and similar problems are being reported across Reddit and the Apple Support Communities, suggesting the problem is widespread.Until it is clear what may be causing the issue and Apple releases a fix, late 2013 and mid 2014 13-inch MacBook Pro may wish to hold off on installing ‌macOS Big Sur‌.Felix LaunchesTPG's New Felix Mobile Brand Has Only One PlanThe telco is positioning itself as a simple service with just one plan available - $35 a month with “endless” data, but that data is capped at 5mbp speeds. That'll be fine for social, email, browsing, and even some video watch, but don't expect HD on NetflixVery clever marketing as Australia's first “zero carbon telco” - and the service will plant one tree per customer per month. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a cornerstone of the modern Internet, especially those particular corners of it that allow (or encourage!) the creation, uploading, and sharing of user generated content outside the platform owner's direct control. But there are a great many misunderstandings and misconceptions about how the DMCA works with respect to these platforms; misconceptions that the platforms themselves are all too willing to exploit. The most recent example being a set of "tonally challenged" messages which streaming service Twitch has delivered to its content creators, deleting their materials unilaterally and implying that such creators need to "educate themselves"...all while the platform itself obfuscated the requirements and operation of the very DMCA it was continuously referencing. Safe Harbors are nice, but they aren't obligatory...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/t2GU5oaAL1A #DMCA #Takedowns #Twitch *** Discussed in this episode: "Twitch streamers were issued tons of DMCA takedown notices today" Polygon - October 20, 2020 - Nicole Carpenter https://www.polygon.com/2020/10/20/21525587/twitch-dmca-takedown-notice-content "It is INSANE that [Twitch] informs partners they deleted their content..." Tweet - October 20, 2020 - Devin (@DevinNash) https://twitter.com/DevinNash/status/1318621892933087234 "Last of Us Leak Legalities" YouTube Playlist - Hoeg Law https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy-ULKii2yP9AY-Emo1_G8xN "This content was identified and deleted for you..." Tweet - October 20, 2020 - Twitch Support (@TwitchSupport) https://twitter.com/TwitchSupport/status/1318624376649113600 "Is Streaming Among Us...Illegal? (VL332)" YouTube Video - October 6, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/sNRk_BV5rFg "Nope. It’s just a safe harbor." Tweet - October 20, 2020 - Richard Hoeg (@HoegLaw) https://twitter.com/HoegLaw/status/1318695756082143232 "No option to counter-notice?" Tweet - October 20, 2020 - LegalEagle (@LegalEagleDJ) https://twitter.com/LegalEagleDJ/status/1318686242079461378 "Limitations on liability relating to material online" 17 USC 512 (the DMCA) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 "Contributory Infringement" Cornell Law School Web Entry https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_infringement Twitch "Terms of Service" Updated October 14, 2020 https://www.twitch.tv/p/legal/terms-of-service/ "The worst kept secret in digital copyright..." Tweet - October 20, 2020 - Richard Hoeg (@HoegLaw) https://twitter.com/HoegLaw/status/1318675036056727554 *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com STORE: https://teespring.com/stores/hoeg-law-store

The saga of Sony and Naughty Dog's "Last of Us Part II" DMCA takedown and copyright claim extravaganza concludes (?) as we once again look into the case of YouTuber HeelvsBabyface (and compatriot JustSomeGuy), who has had the copyright claims placed against him lifted, not even two days after Sony rejected his dispute and looked like they were going to take the process all the way to the end of the line. But is this a victory for the content creators...or something else? Sometimes the other side doesn't do what you expect...in Virtual Legality. (DON'T GET CHEEKY SONY) - Thumbnail/Video Screenshot from: “The Last of Us Part II | Release Date Reveal Trailer | PS4” YouTube Video – September 24, 2019 – PlayStation Europe https://youtu.be/XvG-EpPoCCA CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/-1oqVDyk3jU #TheLastOfUs #Copyright #Takedown *** Discussed in this episode: "Sony DROP Copyright Claims on The Last of Us Part II Leaks Video!!" Tweet - May 15, 2020 - Heel vs Babyface (@heelvsbabyface) https://twitter.com/heelvsbabyface/status/1261479773777338368 "I sent YouTube that video. That may be one of the reasons the video went live." Tweet - May 15, 2020 - Just Some Guy (@justsomeguycc) https://twitter.com/justsomeguycc/status/1261383953811795968 "Sony DROP Copyright Claims on The Last of Us Part II Leaks Video!!" YouTube Video - May 15, 2020 - HeelvsBabyface https://youtu.be/JrvWwL_ioqk "Sony’s New Strategy? Have YouTube Run Out the Clock (VL224)" YouTubeVideo - May 14, 2020 - Hoeg Law https://youtu.be/VtWQ-1Ttodc ""Dispute a Content ID claim" YouTube Help Page https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2797454 "Submit a copyright counter notification" YouTube Help Page https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2807684 "I sent a counterclaim on May 4th - I've heard nothing back." Tweet - May 15, 2020 - Jeremy Prime ( @DDayCobra ) https://twitter.com/DDayCobra/status/1261429547460816896 "[Naughty Dog] just hit [Geeks and Gamers] with a Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for a meme!" Tweet - May 15, 2020 - Geeks + Gamers (@GeeksGamersCom) https://twitter.com/GeeksGamersCom/status/1261431381327900672 "Naughty Dog Has Hit Me With 21 DMCA Takedowns..." Tweet - May 14, 2020 - The Quartering (@TheQuartering) https://twitter.com/TheQuartering/status/1260985919051628544 *** "Virtual Legality" is a continuing series discussing the law, video games, software, and everything digital, hosted by Richard Hoeg, of the Hoeg Law Business Law Firm (Hoeg Law). CHECK OUT THE REST OF VIRTUAL LEGALITY HERE: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1zDCgJzZUy9YAU61GoW-00K0TJOGnPCo DISCUSSION IS PROVIDED FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE. INDIVIDUALS INTERESTED IN THE LEGAL TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THIS VIDEO SHOULD CONSULT WITH THEIR OWN COUNSEL. *** Twitter: @hoeglaw Web: hoeglaw.com Blog: hoeglaw.wordpress.com

it's not cheap or easy to get your iPhone repaired - largely because there's not a lot of real competition in the iPhone repair market. That's no accident. Owners of modern John Deere tractors have really only one option: John Deere. Why? There's no good technical reason. There's really no good legal reason either, but laws like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) have been abused to give these companies inordinate say over who can perform repairs on their products. In part 2 of my interview with the EFF's Cory Doctorow, we discuss the right to repair and wrap up our overall discussion with possible solutions and action items for the concerned consumer. Cory Doctorow is a science fiction author, activist, journalist and blogger. He’s the author of several novels including HOMELAND, LITTLE BROTHER and WALKAWAY. He is the former European director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and co-founded the UK Open Rights Group. Further Info: Adversarial Interoperability: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/adversarial-interoperability Donate to EFF: https://supporters.eff.org/donate Electronic Frontier Alliance: https://www.eff.org/fight

We've talked about copyright, fair use, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and YouTube before, but we've never talked about a company issuing a copyright strike BEFORE a video was even created. Well now we have. What did Mashable's Matt Binder do that so upset Warner Brothers Entertainment? Who is Michael Bentkover, and what does it mean to be Worldwide Director of "Online Enforcement Operations"? Why is this the clearest case of DMCA Abuse we've yet seen? And why does the text of the DMCA suggest that no one is really likely to do much of anything about it? There's no such thing as "pre"-infringement...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/5180odKnWwY #YouTube #DMCA #Copyright *** Discussed in this episode: "Matt Binder" YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/MatthewBinder "YouTube reversed my bogus copyright strike after I threatened to write this" Mashable - January 28, 2020 - Matt Binder https://mashable.com/article/youtube-livestream-bogus-copyright-strike-warner-bros-cnn/ "Michael Bentkover" LinkedIn Profile https://www.linkedin.com/in/michaelbentkover/ "Limitations on liability relating to material online" 17 USC 512 (DMCA) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 *** FOR MORE CHECK US OUT: On Twitter @hoeglaw At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/ On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/

In this episode I’m joined again by leading adult industry attorney Corey D. Silverstein. He’s an outspoken advocate for free speech, creative freedom, and sexual expression. He graciously took time out of his busy schedule to bless us with some critical updates and advice. We cover several of the most pressing regulatory issues, both domestically and internationally, that are changing the game of compliance for website owners and operators in the adult industry and beyond. This episode builds on our two previous podcasts which are definitely prerequisites to fully appreciate the depth of wisdom Corey has cultivated over a nearly 15 year practice: https://tantrapunk.com/attorney-corey-d-silverstein-discusses-some-best-practices-for-porn-production-tpp123/ https://tantrapunk.com/the-evolution-of-crypto-with-adult-industry-attorney-corey-d-silverstein-tpp138/ About Corey: Corey D. Silverstein is the managing and founding member of the Law Offices of Corey D. Silverstein, P.C d/b/a/ Silverstein Legal. His practice focuses on representing many areas of the law that impact the adult industry. His clientele includes hosting companies, affiliate programs, content producers, payment processors, website operators, dating websites, webcam sites, traffic brokers, social media websites and performers, just to name a few. Mr. Silverstein regularly provides legal services related to: age verification and record keeping requirements (18 USC 2257), intellectual property (copyrights and trademarks), the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the Restore Online Shopper’s Confidence Act (ROSCA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) compliance, first amendment / free speech, obscenity, corporate law, criminal defense, internet law, domain disputes and various other areas of the law. Mr. Silverstein is an acclaimed litigator and dispute resolution specialist. His practice also concentrates on complex contracts, business structure, and business formation. Mr. Silverstein prides himself in providing prompt and aggressive representation tailored to each of his clients’ individual needs. Mr. Silverstein is regularly featured in adult industry periodicals such as AVN and XBIZ and has been quoted and published in mainstream media including the New York Times, FOX News, MSNBC, the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, the Detroit News and the Associated Press. Mr. Silverstein is also a regular speaker at conferences throughout the world (United States, Canada, Colombia, Netherlands) and has made countless presentations related to topics and issues that affect the adult industry and online marketplace. Amongst his numerous professional affiliations, Mr. Silverstein is a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association (FALA). Myadultattorney.com is a website dedicated to the representation of adult industry clientele. Mr. Silverstein can be reached through Myadultattorney.com or by email at corey@myadultattorney.com. Mr. Silverstein can also be contacted by telephone at 248-290-0655. Here’s an outline of topics and sentiments we discussed: fosta/sesta the fate of backpage.com the constitutional challenge to fosta blackballing, chilling effects of fosta/sesta tumblr dumps adult the crack down on social media for certain words, images opportunities for decentralized crypto based market share reminder of the”black curtain” days of video stores where it felt embarrassing to access adult content civil litigation pretty stagnant in adult industry current administration’s lack of obscenity prosecution GDPR why it exists, and how difficult it is to implement how major regulation has been long time coming but website owners have haven’t prioritized preparing for it the need to seek professional advice

With the US House of Representatives passing the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (or CASE Act) by an overwhelming margin, questions of copyright law, reform, and abuse has once again come to the fore. What is the CASE Act, and how does it purport to operate? Why are such organizations as the EFF and ACLU so opposed to the Act? Why are some reminded of the way the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) has been abused? And what do we think about the whole thing? CASE Closed...in Virtual Legality. CHECK OUT THE VIDEO AT: https://youtu.be/j-WgBJwZm1k #CASE #DMCA #Copyright *** Discussed in this episode: "This could be a good topic to break from Blizz/China @HoegLaw." Tweet - October 22, 2019 - Justin Greene (@AnimeCwboy) https://twitter.com/AnimeCwboy/status/1186789463755644928 "House overwhelmingly approves contentious new copyright bill" The Verge - October 22, 2019 - Makena Kelly (@kellymakena) https://www.theverge.com/2019/10/22/20927545/copyright-bill-house-congress-hakeem-jeffries-case-act-dmca "A new copyright proposal would protect designers online — but at what cost?" The Verge - July 23, 2019 - Makena Kelly (@kellymakena) https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/23/20703742/case-act-copyright-office-online-designers-congress-bill "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" Wikipedia Entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Title_II:_Online_Copyright_Infringement_Liability_Limitation_Act Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act (CASE Act) H. R. 2426 https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/2426/text *** FOR MORE CHECK US OUT: On Twitter @hoeglaw At our website: https://hoeglaw.com/ On our Blog, "Rules of the Game", at https://hoeglaw.wordpress.com/ On "Help Us Out Hoeg!" a regular segment on the Easy Allies Podcast (formerly GameTrailers) (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZrxXp1reP8E353rZsB3j)

¿Cansado  de los videos clásicos en donde una persona se graba hablando sobre una película? En nuestro caso  nosotros hablamos con las películas ¡y ellas nos responden!. Especialmente en esta ocasión en donde comparamos  tres cintas: American Animals, Museo y Robar a Rodin, en donde el robo es el protagonista, así como lo que dicen este  tipo de cintas sobre el cine mismo.  Pueden encontrar las películas en distintos servicios como YouTube, Prime Video y otros lados.  Puedes apoyar este y más contenido, así como recibir distintos extras y beneficios en Patreon. Become a Patron!   ¿Y este video? No solo está disponible en YouTube sino también en Facebook y Periscope, y hasta en versión descargable. Agradecimiento a nuestros productores ejecutivos: Blanca López Mauricio González Luis Gallardo Nuestro Productor Asociado: Juan Paulo Nevado Nuestros Co-Productores Juan Espíritu Dany Saadia Román Rangel Jaime Rosales Nuestros Consultores Adriana Fernández y Miguel Ángel Huesca Nuestros Patreons: Jésica Zermeño Laura Berdejo Álvaro Vázquez Fernando Teodoro Daniel Krauze Alejandro Alemán Logan Mayer Arturo Aguilar Joel Meza Jorge Figueroa Enrique Vázquez Lulú Petite Luis Macías Edith Sánchez Fernando Alonso Sincero agradecimiento a todos ellos y a ti que estás viendo este video. Si te gustó, compártelo y déjale el like. Credito de Canciones On the Tip - Jingle Punks Retro - Wayne Jones Thinking About It - Jeremy Korpas A Little Less Conversation - Elvis Presley, Junkie XL Under Cover - Wayne Jones Resolution - Wayne Jones Cartoon Bank Heist - Doug Maxwell Elegy - Wayne Jones On the Run - Doug Maxwell, Jimmy Fontanez Los materiales en video aquí presentados están utilizados en base a la Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) y su uso es adecuado para fines de crítica y comentario. El contenido está protegido bajo las reglas del Fair Use. El material grabado para este video está protegido con una licencia Creative Commons de Atribución, No Comercial, de Compartición 4.0 Internacional. (Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 4.0 International) American Animals - Copyright por Al Films LLC - Channel Four Robar a Rodin- Copyright por María Una Vez Museo - Copyright por YouTube Originals

Welcome to a new episode of An InfoSec Life on ITSPmagazine! Today’s topic looks at the life of a hacker and the challenges they face from both a liability and legal perspective. We also look at how organizations deal with the research activities they encounter from both cybercriminals and ethical hackers alike. To help me have this conversation, I am delighted to welcome Amit Elazari, Lecturer at UC Berkeley School of Information, and Leonard Bailey, Special Counsel for National Security at the U.S. Department of Justice, Criminal Division where he is Head of Cybersecurity Unit for the DOJ’s Computer Crime & Intellectual Property Section. There are laws to protect companies from cybercriminals. However, those laws— when interpreted as such—also block ethical hackers from researching and looking for exploitable weaknesses. Changes in the acts and laws over the years have made it better, if not easier, for ethical hackers to perform their research and engage in responsible disclosure. The question is: do these changes also make it "better" and/or “easier” for the cybercriminals? “Safe harbor is not a blanket approval of protection from the law." ~ Amit Elazari During our chat, we dig into the many yin yang elements of this topic as we explore some of the details behind responsible disclosure and vulnerability disclosure programs, the related language and frameworks available from the DoJ and Disclose.io, and how those interact with—and often counteract—the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). There’s a lot of work being done to help establish a safe environment for vulnerability research and responsible disclosure to take place. Formal rules surrounding responsible vulnerability are critical in both the legal landscape as well as with ethical business operations—these rules need sorting out quickly if we are going to function in a safe cyber society. Listen in and enjoy! This episode of An InfoSec Life is made possible by the generosity of our sponsors, Devo and STEALTHbits. Click below to learn more about what they can do for you: www.itspmagazine.com/company-directory/devo www.itspmagazine.com/company-directory/stealthbits

Happy new year eggrybody and welcome back to Eggs! 2019 is here and we're starting off the year strong with our guest Richard Chapo. Richard is a So-Cal-based internet business attorney who has been helping online entrepreneurs avoid “Crap Your Pants” copyright infringement letters and other threats when operating online since 1992. He’s traveled extensively around the world, having lived in Siberia for a year as well as spending time throughout Europe, Central America, and Asia. We talked Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), internet privacy, net neutrality and so much more in this amazing conversation! Get on board and take a listen, you'll be glad you did! Free consult with Richard Chapo visit: socalinternetlawyer.com Just mention you heard about him on EGGS! Our Guest: Richard Chapo So-Cal Internet Lawyer socalinternetlawyer.com YouTUBE Live broadcast: https://youtu.be/H_L_moiFVGo The Eggs Podcast Spotify playlist: bit.ly/eggstunes The Plugs: The Show eggscast.com @eggshow on twitter and instagram On iTunes: itun.es/i6dX3pC On Stitcher: bit.ly/eggs_on_stitcher Also available on Google Play Music! Mike "DJ Ontic" shows and info djontic.com @djontic on twitter Ryan R2 SLC/BCN r2mg.com ryanroghaar.com @r2mg on twitter @r2mediagroup on instagram

Blockchain could turn out to be an ally—or trouble—for copyright holders. The underpinnings of the developing technology, which acts like an inerasable, chronological database of transactions, appear to be at odds with a 20 year-old law that protects copyright holders from infringement. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) allows copyright holders to seek removal of infringing content and protects publishers and internet service providers from liability if they remove such content after being notified. But if the infringing content is posted on a blockchain, it would be difficult or impossible to erase, Bloomberg Law reporter Alexis Kramer said in a recent podcast episode of Code & Conduit.

In this episode we talk about: What comes to mind when Christina hears the label “Type A” How her business, The Contract Shop, has surpassed her income with her law firm, Scalera IP Law The way she “outted herself” to her Rising Tide Society group When she became trained in floral design and calligraphy What it felt like for her to step into areas outside of the legal field & the importance of putting yourself out there in situations that might be uncomfortable The importance of appreciating the journey while you’re in it Her formula for starting a new business & the legal items that need to be considered as you turn your hobby into a business The personal experience that caused her to realize that creating templates would be helpful for other business owners The legal items that should be considered once you are bringing in money The inevitability of having legal issues in your business & why they aren’t always bad Christina’s advice for dealing with copycats The importance of screenshots when someone is copying your work What the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is & what to watch out for when filing a takedown notice How approaching potential copycats with kindness can benefit you What Christina would name her left brain Mentioned In This Episode: Creative Sunday Lab with Jenni Heffernan Brown on June 24, 2018 in San Francisco Rising Tide Society Laura Hooper Calligraphy’s Beginner Calligraphy Workshops Applying for an Employee Identification Number with the IRS Rifle Paper Co Elon Musk’s Instagram Videos: Part 1 & Part 2 Copycat Checklist About Christina Scalera: Christina Scalera is the attorney and founder behind The Contract Shop, a contract template store for creative entrepreneurs, wedding professionals, and coaches.   Three years ago, Christina found herself dreaming of pursuing a more creative path, and she started to look for alternatives to her in-house legal job. She explored everything from teaching yoga to becoming a freelance graphic designer to opening an Etsy shop.   In the process, she ended up coming full circle by creating a business that brought the benefit of her legal training to help her fellow creatives.   When she’s not staring at a computer or awkwardly standing on cafe chairs for the perfect overhead latte photo, you can find her in the woods doing things that are sometimes dangerous but always fun, like riding horses, skiing and reluctantly camping.     Connect with Christina Scalera: On Her Website On Instagram On Facebook On Twitter On Pinterest Through Her Online Courses Her Copycat Checklist   About The Type A Creative Podcast: The Type A Creative is for those of us who feel like walking juxtapositions. You know who you are. You can balance spreadsheets just as easily as you can design a logo. Sometimes it’s a little disorienting because you’re a left-brain / right-brain blend that doesn’t always fit into the labels of “artist” or “numbers person.”   On the show we bring in fellow bosses, painters, creative directors, film makers, entrepreneurs, and writers — together we’re having conversations about what it is to be both Type A and Creative.   Don’t forget to rate & review The Type A Creative on iTunes!

https://tantrapunk.com/the-evolution-of-crypto-with-adult-industry-attorney-corey-d-silverstein-tpp138/ In this episode I’m joined again by my favorite adult industry attorney for an in-depth look at the evolution of crypto-currencies and blockchain technology. We discuss the many ways producers, performers, web services and platforms will need to adapt to survive and thrive in the new decentralized global digital ecosystem. He shares expert insight on the future of adult industry pain points and bottlenecks including payment processing, record keeping compliance, STI screening, privacy, age-verification, advertising, and more. Perhaps most importantly Corey shares his wisdom on best practices for being a savy investor, not just an uninformed speculator. His office is stepping up to stay ahead of the steep crypto learning curve so please contact him for your legal needs at: https://myadultattorney.com/ About Corey: Corey D. Silverstein is the managing and founding member of the Law Offices of Corey D. Silverstein, P.C d/b/a/ Silverstein Legal. His practice focuses on representing many areas of the law that impact the adult industry. His clientele includes hosting companies, affiliate programs, content producers, payment processors, website operators, dating websites, webcam sites, traffic brokers, social media websites and performers, just to name a few. Mr. Silverstein regularly provides legal services related to: age verification and record keeping requirements (18 USC 2257), intellectual property (copyrights and trademarks), the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the Restore Online Shopper’s Confidence Act (ROSCA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) compliance, first amendment / free speech, obscenity, corporate law, criminal defense, internet law, domain disputes and various other areas of the law. Mr. Silverstein is an acclaimed litigator and dispute resolution specialist. His practice also concentrates on complex contracts, business structure, and business formation. Mr. Silverstein prides himself in providing prompt and aggressive representation tailored to each of his clients’ individual needs. Mr. Silverstein is regularly featured in adult industry periodicals such as AVN and XBIZ and has been quoted and published in mainstream media including the New York Times, FOX News, MSNBC, the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, the Detroit News and the Associated Press. Mr. Silverstein is also a regular speaker at conferences throughout the world (United States, Canada, Colombia, Netherlands) and has made countless presentations related to topics and issues that affect the adult industry and online marketplace. Amongst his numerous professional affiliations, Mr. Silverstein is a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association (FALA). Myadultattorney.com is a website dedicated to the representation of adult industry clientele. Mr. Silverstein can be reached through Myadultattorney.com or by email at corey@myadultattorney.com. Mr. Silverstein can also be contacted by telephone at 248-290-0655.

Is the Newest Part of the Copyright Act Antiquated? Unchaining Creativity and Innovation.Nearly twenty years ago, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to combat online infringement. According to some critics, this most recent major update to the Copyright Act is one of the most outdated parts of the law. The discontent stems from the DMCA's "notice and takedown system," which obligates online services to take down pirated works posted by users, but only after the owner identifies the specific file at a specific location on its server. If another copy – or many other copies – of that same file pop up on the same service, each requires a new and separate notice. The authors of the DMCA likely never envisioned the speed and scale of online infringement. Last year, copyright owners sent Google well over 900 million takedown requests. Small creative businesses and individual creators find it impossible to keep up. Neither creators nor online services are satisfied with this state of affairs, although each disagrees strongly as to what to do about it. Is the DMCA an imperfect, but workable solution to a challenging problem? Or has it become outdated and impractical? What are the merits and costs of potential reforms?This live podcast is held in conjunction with the release of a paper authored by members of the Regulatory Transparency Project's Intellectual Property working group. The paper is called "Creativity and Innovation Unchained: Why Copyright Law Must be Updated for the Digital Age by Simplifying It." This paper, which discusses the DMCA notice and takedown issue, is available for viewing and download at https://regproject.org/paper/creativity-innovation-unchained-copyright-law-must-updated-digital-age-simplifying/.Featuring:- Jennifer L. Pariser, Vice President of Copyright and Legal Affairs, Motion Picture Association- Maria Schneider, GRAMMY Award Winning Artist - Mark. F. Schultz, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of LawVisit our website – https://RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

Is the Newest Part of the Copyright Act Antiquated? Unchaining Creativity and Innovation.Nearly twenty years ago, Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to combat online infringement. According to some critics, this most recent major update to the Copyright Act is one of the most outdated parts of the law. The discontent stems from the DMCA's "notice and takedown system," which obligates online services to take down pirated works posted by users, but only after the owner identifies the specific file at a specific location on its server. If another copy – or many other copies – of that same file pop up on the same service, each requires a new and separate notice. The authors of the DMCA likely never envisioned the speed and scale of online infringement. Last year, copyright owners sent Google well over 900 million takedown requests. Small creative businesses and individual creators find it impossible to keep up. Neither creators nor online services are satisfied with this state of affairs, although each disagrees strongly as to what to do about it. Is the DMCA an imperfect, but workable solution to a challenging problem? Or has it become outdated and impractical? What are the merits and costs of potential reforms?This live podcast is held in conjunction with the release of a paper authored by members of the Regulatory Transparency Project's Intellectual Property working group. The paper is called "Creativity and Innovation Unchained: Why Copyright Law Must be Updated for the Digital Age by Simplifying It." This paper, which discusses the DMCA notice and takedown issue, is available for viewing and download at https://regproject.org/paper/creativity-innovation-unchained-copyright-law-must-updated-digital-age-simplifying/.Featuring:- Jennifer L. Pariser, Vice President of Copyright and Legal Affairs, Motion Picture Association- Maria Schneider, GRAMMY Award Winning Artist - Mark. F. Schultz, Associate Professor of Law, Southern Illinois University School of LawVisit our website – https://RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

In this episode I am joined by the highly accomplished adult entertainment industry attorney Corey D. Silverstein for a discussion on some best practices for porn production. I was very impressed by his passion, ferocity, and insight on a legal panel at the XBiz adult industry trade convention earlier this year. We met and spoke briefly at the event and I’ve been looking forward to exploring his wealth of knowledge ever since. He shares some of his personal background and path to becoming an adult industry attorney, he then provides hard earned wisdom that will help keep new adult content producers and performers on the right side of the law. As more independent content creators enter the industry, this episode will hopefully serve as an empowering starting point for self-study. Ultimately Corey makes an eloquent and compelling case for why anyone involved in the industry should have competent legal representation and advisement every step of the way. Please visit his website and access his services at: https://myadultattorney.com/ Corey D. Silverstein is the managing and founding member of the Law Offices of Corey D. Silverstein, P.C d/b/a/ Silverstein Legal. His practice focuses on representing many areas of the law that impact the adult industry. His clientele includes hosting companies, affiliate programs, content producers, payment processors, website operators, dating websites, webcam sites, traffic brokers, social media websites and performers, just to name a few. Mr. Silverstein regularly provides legal services related to: age verification and record keeping requirements (18 USC 2257), intellectual property (copyrights and trademarks), the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, the Restore Online Shopper’s Confidence Act (ROSCA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) compliance, first amendment / free speech, obscenity, corporate law, criminal defense, internet law, domain disputes and various other areas of the law. Mr. Silverstein is an acclaimed litigator and dispute resolution specialist. His practice also concentrates on complex contracts, business structure, and business formation. Mr. Silverstein prides himself in providing prompt and aggressive representation tailored to each of his clients’ individual needs. Mr. Silverstein is regularly featured in adult industry periodicals such as AVN and XBIZ and has been quoted and published in mainstream media including the New York Times, FOX News, MSNBC, the Miami Herald, the Washington Post, the Detroit News and the Associated Press. Mr. Silverstein is also a regular speaker at conferences throughout the world (United States, Canada, Colombia, Netherlands) and has made countless presentations related to topics and issues that affect the adult industry and online marketplace. Amongst his numerous professional affiliations, Mr. Silverstein is a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association (FALA). Myadultattorney.com is a website dedicated to the representation of adult industry clientele. Mr. Silverstein can be reached through Myadultattorney.com or by email at corey@myadultattorney.com. Mr. Silverstein can also be contacted by telephone at 248-290-0655.

How to Build a Lobbying Presence in Washington Before you build a lobbying presence in Washington, consider the fact that technology now touches almost every aspect of our lives. Accordingly, our policymaking has become more complex as companies develop new technologies and consumers use technology in ways that were unanticipated. What are the key issues that policymakers and businesses should be focused on as they seek to fine-tune their policy strategies? How are policymakers dealing with issues, like diversity, that policymakers have historically considered less "substantive" but which have begun to take on monumental importance in American business and politics? Why is Washington, D.C. relevant to start up and early stage ventures and how can they build a lobbying presence in Washington? You'll get answers to these questions and more on Ep. 102! Bio Named a “Top Lobbyist” by The Hill newspaper, Elizabeth Frazee (@EFrazeeDC) has a 30 year career in Washington. Elizabeth has worked in high-level jobs on Capitol Hill, as an entertainment executive, and policy representative of major companies. Elizabeth interweaves a thorough understanding of policy, communications, politics and an impressive network of contacts to manage campaigns and coalitions. A native of North Carolina, Elizabeth began her career working for her home state Senator. She then served as press secretary for the House Energy and Commerce Committee. Additionally, Elizabeth ran the legislative office of then-freshman Representative Bob Goodlatte. Goodlatte now serves as Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. Following her time in Congress Elizabeth was director of government relations at the Walt Disney Company. There she served as the motion picture industry's representative in Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) negotiations. Those negotiations resulted in revisions to the Copyright Act. Additionally, Elizabeth also negotiated with Congress and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to enact the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). She joined AOL in the late 90's as vice president of public policy and ran its Congressional team. While at AOL she served on the front lines of Internet policy debates, helped AOL merge with Time Warner, and helped secure the passage of Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China. Then, in 2003,  Elizabeth built a private lobbying practice. That practice became TwinLogic Strategies when she and co-founder Sharon Ringley launched the firm in 2009. Elizabeth earned her law degree from the Columbus School of Law at the Catholic University of America, while working full-time for Congress. She received a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Resources TwinLogic Strategies Future Crimes by Marc Goodman News Roundup Members Slam Google on Tech Diversity Most of you are familiar by now with Google's firing of James Damore. Damore is the engineer who wrote the screed that reinforced stereotypes about women working at the company. Well, lawmakers are now urging Google to ensure its stated efforts to improve diversity lead to actual diversity. In a Medium post, Silicon Valley Rep. Ro Khanna wrote that the incident highlights Google's diversity challenges. He called upon Google to do more. Further, eps. Jan Schakowsky, Pramila Jayapal, Jamie Raskin and Robin Kelly -- all Democrats -- also weighed in. They urged Google to address diversity more effectively. Tony Romm reports in Recode. In Punch to Disney, Netflix Signs Shonda Rhimes Disney announced last week that it would be ending its contract with Netflix in 2019. Disney plans to offer its content on its own standalone service. However, Netflix responded by signing hit showrunner Shonda Rhimes. Rhimes previously created such shows as Grey's Anatomy and Scandal for Disney. Rhimes has been a boon to Disney's ABC unit for more than a decade. Netflix is also negotiating with Disney the possibility of Netflix continuing to carry Marvel content after 2019. Meg James, David Ng and Tracey Lien report for the LA Times and Lizzie Plaugic reports for the Verge. Major Tech Firms Lining Up to Support "Extreme Vetting" Several tech firms are enthusiastically lining up to support President Trump's "extreme vetting" program.  Recall that on the campaign trail Trump advocated for the creation of an extreme vetting program.  The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations (ICE) division is now working on building the program.  The program's  goal is to determine, with pinpoint accuracy, which persons entering the country are most likely to engage in acts of terrorism. IBM, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lexis Nexis, SAS and Deloitte are among the companies interested in building this out. Sam Biddle and Spencer Woodman report for the Intercept.   Benchmark Capital Sues Travis Kalanick Benchmark Capital--a major Silicon Valley investor and Uber investor--is suing former Uber CEO Travis Kalanick for fraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. In  a complaint filed in Delaware, Benchmark says Kalanick deceived the board into expanding Uber's board from 8 to 11. Now, Benchmark says, Kalanick holds one of the very seats he created and is attempting to pack the board with members who are sympathetic to him. Dan Primack reports for Axios. More Tech Companies Oppose Anti-Sex Trafficking Bill We reported last week that the House introduced a bill, with the support of 24 members, that seeks to curtail online sex trafficking. The bill is a response to Backpage.com, a site that hosted prostitution and sex abuse ads. Now the bipartisan bill is up to 27 sponsors. However, joining the opposition are Engine Advocacy and the Copia Institute which spearheaded a letter campaign that was signed by 30 tech companies including Kickstarter, Meetup, Medium and Reddit. They argue that the bill goes too far in restricting legal third-party content. Wendy Davis Reports in Media Post.  

What can Taylor Swift and Katy Perry agree on? Not much, but they both think America’s notice-and-takedown laws are outdated. These laws allow copyright holders to ask Internet platforms to remove content that infringes on intellectual property. The 1996 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) aimed to strike a balance that protects copyright while shielding online platforms from being sued out of existence. But plenty of stakeholders have gripes with the current system. Many in the music industry say Internet platforms are enabling piracy, which robs artists and discourages creativity. The tech industry worries that stricter copyright laws would allow frivolous lawsuits to put platforms out of business, creating a chilling effect on free speech. Evan discusses with Mike Masnick, founder and CEO of Floor64 and editor of Techdirt.

Evangalist Lana Neita returns to deliver another episode in her series 'Real Love' -  'The Love of the Father' (Continued from 2/18/17 ~see archive~).  She has appeared on numerous programs including Pine Ridge Warriors with the late brother Marcus Samuel and today's hosts Curtis and Hailey Horse, Fellowship of Deliverance with apostle Emmitt Overton and is a frequent guest on Omegaman Radio with Shannon Ray Davis. Lana has an end-time spiritual warfare and deliverance ministry with a global mission to teach and preach the Gospel of the Good News of the Kingdom to the nations with signs, wonders and miracles following and to release the prison gates of the demonic captive,  proclaiming Jesus is Lord in the earth to the Glory of God the Father. Boldly speaking the Truth of the Word of God to destroy the lies and deception of the enemy.  Her mission has included revivals, crusades and conferences in the Caribbean, Canada, the USA, Africa and on worldwide radio.  She recently returned from Uganda on a mission to evangalize there. Her website can be found here: http://www.lananeita.com/   :::FAIR USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER:::  The following songs are included in this broadcast with attribution to the artist: He Knows my Name by Israel Houghton, The Way You Father Me by Elijah Oyelade.  No copyright claim is made by this channel.  Fair Use is claimed according to section 107 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

Tonight's Special Guest on Prophetic Message is Evangalist Lana Neita.  Sister Lana has appeared on numerous programs including Pine Ridge Warriors with both the late brother Marcus Samuel and today's hosts Curtis and Hailey Horse, Fellowship of Deliverance with apostle Emmitt Overton and is a frequent guest on Omegaman Radio with Shannon Ray Davis. Sister Lana has an end-time spiritual warfare and deliverance ministry with a global mission to teach and preach the Gospel of the Good News of the Kingdom to the nations with signs, wonders and miracles following and to release the prison gates of the demonic captive,  proclaiming Jesus is Lord in the earth to the Glory of God the Father. Boldly speaking the Truth of the Word of God to destroy the lies and deception of the enemy.  Her mission has included revivals, crusades and conferences in the Caribbean, Canada, the USA, Africa and on worldwide radio.  She recently returned from Uganda on a mission to evangalize there. Her website can be found here: http://www.lananeita.com/   :::FAIR USE COPYRIGHT DISCLAIMER:::  The following songs are included in this broadcast with attribution to the artist. They are:  'How He Loves' by David Crowder (cover by aLio) and 'How Deep the Father's Love For Us' by Selah.  No copyright claim is made by this channel.  Fair Use is claimed according to section 107 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The O’Reilly Security Podcast: DRM in unexpected places, artistic and research hindrances, and ill-anticipated consequences.In this best of 2016 episode, I revisit a conversation from earlier this year with Cory Doctorow, a journalist, activist, and science fiction writer. We discuss the unexpected places where digital rights management (DRM) pops up, how it hinders artistic expression and legitimate security research, and the ill-anticipated (and often dangerous) consequences of copyright exemptions.Early in 2016, Cory and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) launched a lawsuit against the U.S. government. They are representing two plaintiffs—Matthew Green and Bunnie Huang—in a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is a notoriously complicated copyright law that was passed in 1998. Section 1201 is the part that relates to bypassing DRM. The law says that it's against the rules to bypass DRM, even for lawful purposes, and it imposes very severe civil and criminal penalties. There's a $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for a first offense provided for in the statute. Here, Cory explains some of the more subtle consequences that arise from DRM in unexpected places. An urgent need to protect individual rights and freedoms Everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, ‘Is this part an original manufacturer's part, or is it a third-party part?’ Original manufacturer's parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts. This is a live issue. Apple has deprecated the 3.5-millimeter audio jack on their phones in favor of using a digital interface. If they put DRM on that digital audio interface, they can specify at a minute level—and even invent laws about—how customers and plug-in product manufacturers can engage with it. Congress has never said, ‘You're not allowed to record anything coming off your iPhone,’ but Apple could set a “no record” flag on audio coming out of that digital interface. Then they could refuse to give license for users to decrypt the audio, making it illegal to use. Simply by using the device, users would be agreeing to accept and honor that no-record stipulation, and bypassing it would be illegal. DRM hinders legitimate research and artistic expression Matthew Green [one of the plaintiffs in the EFF lawsuit] has a National Science Foundation grant to study a bunch of technologies with DRM on them, and the Copyright Office explicitly said he is not allowed to do research on those technologies. The Copyright Office did grant a limited exemption to the DMCA to research consumer products, but it excludes things like aviation systems or payment systems like Green wants to research. Bunnie Huang [the other plaintiff] is running up against similar limitations on bypassing DRM to make narrative films with extracts from movies. We have one branch of the government refusing to grant these exemptions. We have the highest court in the land saying that without fair use, copyright is not constitutional. And we have two plaintiffs who could be criminal defendants in the future if they continue to engage in the same conduct they've engaged in in the past. This gives us standing to now ask the courts whether it’s constitutional for the DMCA to apply to technologies that enable fair use, and whether the Copyright Office really does have the power to determine what they grant exemptions for. Our winning this case would effectively gut Section 1201 of the DMCA for all of the anticompetitive and the security-limiting applications that it's found so far. DCMA exemptions can have serious consequences The Copyright Office granted an exemption for tablets and phones so people could jailbreak them and use alternate stores. This exemption allows individuals to write the necessary software to jailbreak their own personal devices but does not allow individuals to share that tool with anyone else, or publish information about how it works or information that would help someone else make that tool. So, now we have this weird situation where people have to engage in illegal activity (trafficking in a tool by sharing information about how to jailbreak a phone) to allow the average user to engage in a legal activity (jailbreaking their device). This is hugely problematic from a security perspective. Anyone can see the danger of seeking out randos to provide binaries that root a mobile device. To avoid prosecution, those randos are anonymous. And because it’s illegal to give advice about how the tool works, people have no recourse if it turns out that the advice they follow is horribly wrong or ends up poisoning their device with malware. This is a disaster from stem to stern—we're talking about the supercomputer in your pocket with a camera and a microphone that knows who all your friends are. It's like Canada’s recent legalization of heroin use without legalizing heroin sales. A whole bunch of people died of an overdose because they got either adulterated heroin or heroin that was more pure than they were used to. If the harm reduction you’re aiming for demands that an activity be legal, then the laws should support safe engagement in that activity. Instead, in both the heroin and device jailbreak examples, we have made these activities as unsafe as possible. It's really terrible. The security implications really matter, because we hear about vulnerabilities and zero-days and breaks against IoT devices every day in ways that are really, frankly, terrifying. Last winter, it was people accessing baby monitors; this week, it was ransomware for IoT thermostats and breaks against closed-circuit televisions in homes.

The O’Reilly Security Podcast: DRM in unexpected places, artistic and research hindrances, and ill-anticipated consequences.In this best of 2016 episode, I revisit a conversation from earlier this year with Cory Doctorow, a journalist, activist, and science fiction writer. We discuss the unexpected places where digital rights management (DRM) pops up, how it hinders artistic expression and legitimate security research, and the ill-anticipated (and often dangerous) consequences of copyright exemptions.Early in 2016, Cory and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) launched a lawsuit against the U.S. government. They are representing two plaintiffs—Matthew Green and Bunnie Huang—in a case that challenges the constitutionality of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The DMCA is a notoriously complicated copyright law that was passed in 1998. Section 1201 is the part that relates to bypassing DRM. The law says that it's against the rules to bypass DRM, even for lawful purposes, and it imposes very severe civil and criminal penalties. There's a $500,000 fine and a five-year prison sentence for a first offense provided for in the statute. Here, Cory explains some of the more subtle consequences that arise from DRM in unexpected places. An urgent need to protect individual rights and freedoms Everything has software. Therefore, manufacturers can invoke the DMCA to defend anything they’ve stuck a thin scrim of DRM around, and that defense includes the ability to prevent people from making parts. All they need to do is add a little integrity check, like the ones that have been in printers for forever, that asks, ‘Is this part an original manufacturer's part, or is it a third-party part?’ Original manufacturer's parts get used; third-party parts get refused. Because that check restricts access to a copyrighted work, bypassing it is potentially a felony. Car manufacturers use it to lock you into buying original parts. This is a live issue. Apple has deprecated the 3.5-millimeter audio jack on their phones in favor of using a digital interface. If they put DRM on that digital audio interface, they can specify at a minute level—and even invent laws about—how customers and plug-in product manufacturers can engage with it. Congress has never said, ‘You're not allowed to record anything coming off your iPhone,’ but Apple could set a “no record” flag on audio coming out of that digital interface. Then they could refuse to give license for users to decrypt the audio, making it illegal to use. Simply by using the device, users would be agreeing to accept and honor that no-record stipulation, and bypassing it would be illegal. DRM hinders legitimate research and artistic expression Matthew Green [one of the plaintiffs in the EFF lawsuit] has a National Science Foundation grant to study a bunch of technologies with DRM on them, and the Copyright Office explicitly said he is not allowed to do research on those technologies. The Copyright Office did grant a limited exemption to the DMCA to research consumer products, but it excludes things like aviation systems or payment systems like Green wants to research. Bunnie Huang [the other plaintiff] is running up against similar limitations on bypassing DRM to make narrative films with extracts from movies. We have one branch of the government refusing to grant these exemptions. We have the highest court in the land saying that without fair use, copyright is not constitutional. And we have two plaintiffs who could be criminal defendants in the future if they continue to engage in the same conduct they've engaged in in the past. This gives us standing to now ask the courts whether it’s constitutional for the DMCA to apply to technologies that enable fair use, and whether the Copyright Office really does have the power to determine what they grant exemptions for. Our winning this case would effectively gut Section 1201 of the DMCA for all of the anticompetitive and the security-limiting applications that it's found so far. DCMA exemptions can have serious consequences The Copyright Office granted an exemption for tablets and phones so people could jailbreak them and use alternate stores. This exemption allows individuals to write the necessary software to jailbreak their own personal devices but does not allow individuals to share that tool with anyone else, or publish information about how it works or information that would help someone else make that tool. So, now we have this weird situation where people have to engage in illegal activity (trafficking in a tool by sharing information about how to jailbreak a phone) to allow the average user to engage in a legal activity (jailbreaking their device). This is hugely problematic from a security perspective. Anyone can see the danger of seeking out randos to provide binaries that root a mobile device. To avoid prosecution, those randos are anonymous. And because it’s illegal to give advice about how the tool works, people have no recourse if it turns out that the advice they follow is horribly wrong or ends up poisoning their device with malware. This is a disaster from stem to stern—we're talking about the supercomputer in your pocket with a camera and a microphone that knows who all your friends are. It's like Canada’s recent legalization of heroin use without legalizing heroin sales. A whole bunch of people died of an overdose because they got either adulterated heroin or heroin that was more pure than they were used to. If the harm reduction you’re aiming for demands that an activity be legal, then the laws should support safe engagement in that activity. Instead, in both the heroin and device jailbreak examples, we have made these activities as unsafe as possible. It's really terrible. The security implications really matter, because we hear about vulnerabilities and zero-days and breaks against IoT devices every day in ways that are really, frankly, terrifying. Last winter, it was people accessing baby monitors; this week, it was ransomware for IoT thermostats and breaks against closed-circuit televisions in homes.

May 20, 2016. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), codified in part in 17 U.S.C. §1201, makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works, including copyrighted books, movies, videos, video games and computer programs. This session will explore the necessity, relevance and sufficiency of the permanent exemptions to the prohibition of circumvention, and will consider whether amendments of additional exemption categories may be advisable. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7478

May 19, 2016. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), codified in part in 17 U.S.C. §1201, makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works, including copyrighted books, movies, videos, video games and computer programs. This session will explore the process of renewal of exemptions granted under a prior rulemaking including consideration of proposals for presumptive renewal when there is no meaningful opposition. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7476

May 19, 2016. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), codified in part in 17 U.S.C. §1201, makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works, including copyrighted books, movies, videos, video games and computer programs. This session will explore the role of Anti-Trafficking provisions of §1201(a)(2) and §1201(b) in deterring copyright infringement and will consider whether any amendments may be advisable. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7477

May 19, 2016. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), codified in part in 17 U.S.C. §1201, makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works, including copyrighted books, movies, videos, video games and computer programs. This session will explore the role and effectiveness of section 1201 in protecting copyrighted content and will consider how the statute should accommodate interests that are outside of core copyright concerns. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7474

May 19, 2016. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), codified in part in 17 U.S.C. §1201, makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures used to prevent unauthorized access to copyrighted works, including copyrighted books, movies, videos, video games and computer programs. This session will explore the general operation of the triennial rulemaking process under section 1201, including the evidentiary showing required for an exemption, and the procedural aspects of the rulemaking. For transcript, captions, and more information, visit http://www.loc.gov/today/cyberlc/feature_wdesc.php?rec=7475

Tracey Freed is the Founder of Freed Law and an Adjunct Professor at LMU’s law program. Prior to setting up her own shop to focus on digital media, entertainment and technology transactions, Tracey was a Partner at DME Law and served as Assistant General Counsel for Digital Networks at Sony Pictures. Shaun Spalding is an independent entertainment and intellectual property lawyer, who represents some of the most popular YouTube creators in the world. He is actively involved in non-profit work, serving as an advisory board member for New Media Rights and as a mentor for the Rising Arts Leaders program. In this episode, Shaun and Tracey highlight some of the key legal issues impacting the online video space, including intellectual property rights, consumer privacy, and FTC compliance for sponsored content. We discuss how the industry has evolved since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed back in 1996 and how the growth of new platforms effects creators and media companies alike. Host:... --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

This episode provides an introduction to digital rights management (DRM), that is, the protection of intellectual property on online platforms. We discuss the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), key legal doctrines like public domain and fair use, and digital fingerprinting technologies like YouTube's ContentID and Facebook's Rights Manager.Host: James CreechABOUT THE SHOWAll Things Video is a podcast dedicated to uncovering the past and charting the future of the online video ecosystem. Listen to interviews with founders, executives, and thought leaders from the world’s leading video networks and engage in thought-provoking debates about the key issues shaping the next generation of entertainment. From the short-form content revolution to the rise of multi-channel networks (MCNs) and the fragmentation of video viewership in an always-on world, All Things Video reveals the key trends and insights from the world of digital video. Subscribe for new episodes and updates!ABOUT THE HOSTJames Creech is an entrepreneur focused on technology, online video, and digital media. He is the Co-Founder & CEO of Paladin Software, the premier technology provider for the world's leading video networks and next-generation media companies.OUR SPONSORThis episode is brought to you by Feldspar Ventures, an incubator studio that transforms early stage media properties into multi-medium entertainment franchises. Their team is passionate about transforming a creator’s vision into reality and commercial success. To learn more, visit feldsparventures.com. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Rian Bosak is the VP, Network Operations at Fullscreen. He began his career in television before transitioning into digital via a job at Machinima and later as the first employee at StyleHaul. Over the past five years, Rian has managed the YouTube content management system (CMS) and overseen digital rights management for three of the world’s top MCNs. In this episode, we provide a detailed explanation of digital rights management, that is, the protection and monetization of intellectual property (IP), on online video platforms. We describe the complexities of YouTube’s ContentID system for content claiming and anti-piracy enforcement, including the use of Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) takedown notifications to remove pirated content from video-sharing sites. Host: James Creech ABOUT THE SHOW All Things Video is a podcast dedicated to uncovering the past and charting the future of the online video ecosystem. Listen to interviews with founders, executives, and thought leaders from the world’s leading video networks and engage in thought-provoking debates about the key issues shaping the next generation of entertainment. From the short-form content revolution to the rise of multi-channel networks (MCNs) and the fragmentation of video viewership in an always-on world, All Things Video reveals the key trends and insights from the world of digital video. Subscribe for new episodes and updates! ABOUT THE HOST James Creech is an entrepreneur focused on technology, online video, and digital media. He currently serves as the SVP, Growth for Bent Pixels, the premier technology provider for the world's leading video networks and next-generation media companies. OUR SPONSOR This episode is brought to you by Mediakix, the leading influencer marketing agency, which connects the world’s top brands with engaged audiences through social media influencers. Their campaigns drive brand awareness, audience engagement, and product sales for brands like Nordstrom, Blue Apron, David Yurman, Hallmark, and more. Visit http://www.mediakix.com to get started with your influencer campaign today. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

This has been a crazy semester. Thus, I am delinquent in posting shows from this quarter. I am about to update the record. Let's start with Show # 244, October 2, my interview with Prof. Andrea Matwyshyn of Northeastern University Law School, on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and the Volkwagen fraud scandal. Andrea has been doing outstanding work focusing on how copyright law can impede the ability of computer security researchers to conduct their research. On behalf of several academic security researchers, she submitted a request for an exemption under the DMCA for such research, and found success in late October. In our interview, we discussed the nature of computer security research, the law around it, and its implications for issues like research around the still-unfolding Volkswagen scandal. I am a big fan of Andrea's work, and was delighted to have her on the show. I hope that you enjoy the interview. {Hearsay Culture is a talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.}

Cody welcomes Sam Castree III, Ace Attorney, who discusses some fundamental legal needs of video game developers. Hear Sam walk Cody through the process of how a video game developer should select and leverage legal counsel from day one of development. Show Notes: * Sam Castree III, Ace Attorney, talks about how he got into practicing video game law, including an incident with a friend’s free-to-play game being ripped off and listed for sale by another company in Vietnam * Sam briefly touches on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and how it applied to the situation * For more information, you can check out Sam’s published paper, Cyber-Plagiarism for Sale!: The Growing Problem of Blatant Copyright Infringement in Online Digital Media Stores * Sam reveals that he was sworn in on Halloween, and Cody reveals why that is perfectly appropriate for Sam, whose trademark for years has been the color orange * Sam discusses word-of-mouth, networking, and other methods of growing a business * Learn the importance of establishing “the basics” when beginning a video game development venture * Background info on “one size fits all” lawyers and why to NOT use them when entering into an entertainment-specific business venture like video game development * Cody asks Sam to walk him through the legal process from square one, beginning with the moment a potential video game developer picks up a dev kit * Sam starts with the importance of defining what type of company you have, e.g. sole proprietorship, limited liability corporation, corporation, partnership, etc. * Sam talks about Lawyers for the Creative Arts (pro bono & low-cost legal help in the Chicago area), which he has worked with in the past * Sam explains independent contractor agreements, why it’s important to have them when someone contributes to your game, and what happens to those agreements after 35 years * On a related note, learn why Superman has been dealing with litigation for decades * Also learn about how different contracts work under different court jurisdictions, and why it’s important to get local legal help * In a rare moment, Cody contributes his expertise by mentioning one good piece of legal advice he’s ever heard: get everything in writing * Sam backs him up and actually explains why this is important * Sam goes into the details of different types of partnerships, such as general partnerships, and when and what kind of partnership may be a good idea * Sam explains the legal benefits and privileges gained from filing for a copyright, including some of the policies surrounding how and when you can do it * What do you do if you accidentally “rip someone off” when making a game? Sam explains! * Why using someone else’s content in your game is definitely a no-no * Cody and Sam talk about overseas litigation, and the reasons why it can be pretty ridiculously difficult to pursue * Sam talks trademarks and how protectable they are * He delves into King Digital’s attempt to trademark “saga” to protect their games like Candy Crush Saga, and why the trademark filing wasn’t quite as strange as everyone initially thought (although it was still pretty bad) * Cody brings up the iDroid from Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain, and asks Sam about the “i” prefix as a trademark * Sam also talks about logo usage in games, and what can and can’t get you into trouble, including an interesting situation that is currently being “tested”

I'm pleased to post Show #201, my interview with Jonathan Band of policybandwith.com. Jonathan has been at the center of many major technology policy issues, from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) to the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), over the past 20 years. As Jonathan represents many clients as a lobbyist, I was excited to have him on the show to discuss the current lay of the land in Washington in IP policy. We had a wide ranging and candid discussion of the policy and politics of IP, both at the domestic and international levels. I hope that you enjoy this timely discussion! {Hearsay Culture is a talk show on KZSU-FM, Stanford, 90.1 FM, hosted by Center for Internet & Society Resident Fellow David S. Levine. The show includes guests and focuses on the intersection of technology and society. How is our world impacted by the great technological changes taking place? Each week, a different sphere is explored. For more information, please go to http://hearsayculture.com.}