Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Can Anonymous Wikipedia Editors Be Held Accountable For Their Edits?

Image

While it may be common for people to bring suits against bloggers, what happens if someone attempts to bring a lawsuit against an anonymous Wikipedia editor?

Attorney Susan Burke brought a defamation lawsuit to reveal two anonymous Wikipedia editors that stated that she had been sanctioned by a federal judge. The editors are identified by their usernames Zujua and CapBasics359. Zujua is fighting the subpoena and was responsible for the edit of Burke's Wikipedia page in 2012, and although CapBasics359 is still unknown, Burke's counsel is aware that CapBasics359 was previously logged in at a Starbucks in California.

While Burke states that her primary reason for bringing the suit is to discover who was editing her Wikipedia page with false information, Zujua's attorney, Christopher Hajec from the Center of Individual Rights claims that as a policy reason, revealing anonymous editors will have a "chilling [of] the free speech rights of other Wikipedia editors who will hesitate to edit on matters of public concern for fear of being sued if they make a mistake."

What do you think? Should anonymous Wikipedia editors be responsible for their edits?

Originally seen on ABAJournal here.

Whose Rights Are They Anyways?

What happens to rights when music initially recorded does not have good legal documentation?

In the 1960s, when Bob Marley and the Wailers recorded their music in Jamaica, legal documentation was not as meticulous. Universal Music Group (UMG), used the lack of documentation to prevent Rock River Communications (Rock River) from distributing remixes of the music by threatening to sue Rock River's distributors. In 2006, Rock River entered into a licensing agreement with San Juan Music Group (San Juan) to sample 16 musical recordings by Bob Marley and the Wailers (Marley). Rock River subsequently created remixes and registered copyrights for the remixes. UMG sent a cease-and-desist letter to Rock River to stop releasing the album because UMG claimed they owned exclusive licensing rights. UMG subsequently sent Rock River's business partners the letters requesting them to stop distribution of Rock River's remix.

Rock River brought suit against UMG for wrongfully disrupting Rock River's business. While UMG stated that they believed in good faith that they held exclusive licensing rights due to a previous contract in 2003 with JAD, Rock River discovered evidence that JAD's claim to ownership was tenuous and UMG was aware of the chain of title during the time they signed the 2003 contract and the time they sent the cease-and-desist letters. Additionally there was evidence to show that UMG entered into licensing agreements with San Juan to license tracks to JAD.

The court concluded that because UMG was aware of San Juan's history of open licensing of the recordings, and because UMG and JAD never sued San Juan for license infringement and never initiated a lawsuit, a reasonable jury could conclude that UMG was attempting to enforce its exclusive licensing rights claim through threat of litigation as opposed to actual litigation. So the court overturned UMG's motion for summary judgment.

Source here.

When Birthing Gets Personal...

What happens when two birthing blogs go head to head which leads to a lawsuit? Sounds like a movie premise doesn't it? Well surprisingly, it isn't a movie premise, it's real. Even Judge Stearns from the United States District Court, District of Massachusetts says, "The choice of birthing techniques is not the most obvious subject for a war of polemics. But the wisdom of midwifery triggered a ferocious battle of the blogs culminating in [the following] lawsuit."

In Tuteur v. Crosley-Corcoran, Tuteur, a former physician who is a "scathing critic of home birthing", and Crosley-Corcoran, a doula who believes in "natural birth", get into a spat. Crosley-Corcoran subsequently uploads a photo of herself in a graphic pose which Tuteur copied and posted on her own blog without Crosley-Corocoran's permission. Crosley-Corocoran hired an attorney who sent a cease-and-desist notice by email to Tuteur and also to BlueHost, Tuteur's web server a takedown notice. BlueHost subsequently warned Tuteur to eliminate or disable the infringing material or her site could be suspended. While Tuteur initially took down the photo, she reuploaded it, in which BlueHost told both parties that they were no longer going to take part in the suit. Tuteur subsequently moved to a new server called DaringHost. DaringHost informed Tuteur of the takedown notice that Crosley-Corcoran's attorney sent and Tuteur removed the photo.

Tuteur enlisted the help of her husband and Crosley-Corcoran's attorney offered a truce. Crosley-Corcoran would not pursue further action if Tuteur removed the image and abstained from referencing each other in their blogs. Tuteur refused and counter-sued.

The court found that 17 U.S.C. §512 of the DMCA expressly limits the liability of an ISP so long as the ISP complied with the takedown notice. In addition, the court held that a copyright owner need not exhaust "an alleged infringer's possible defenses prior to acting, only that she affirm a good faith belief that the copyrighted material is being used without her or her agent's permission," so the takedown notice was proper.

Moral of the story: Don't let your spite over a dispute on the internet cloud your judgment in copyrights and should you ever receive a takedown notice, either comply with the notice or tread lightly.

‘Tube-y Thursdays: Ylvis - The Fox

What’s new and awesome on the ‘tube?

This week, I just had to show this video that is neither techie or legal. But it's amusing. I promise! This video had me cracking up every time I watched it.




Techie Talk Tuesdays: An Uber Way to Get a Lyft Around Los Angeles! (belated post)

Oh, Los Angeles... without a car, it’s hard to get around! Don’t have a car? Need a way to get around without having to take the Metro? Going to that Bar Review, and want to squeeze in some extra drinks without the worries of getting pulled over? Tired of taking a cab and having people steal it after a long night? If you answered yes to any of the above questions, check out these two awesome on-demand ride apps.


Uber and Lyft are both apps that can be downloaded to your iPhone or Android phone. No need to pull out your credit card or tipping, as your payment information is stored in your account profile for both apps. Uber has a base fare whereas Lyft uses “donations” as payments. Uber allows you to create an account, whereas Lyft makes you connect to your public Facebook or LinkedIn profile. Both apps allow you to track your driver till they pick you up, and both send text message notifications upon arriving at your location! Upon reaching your destination, you’ll receive a friendly receipt in your inbox!


Uber, the self-proclaimed app that allows everyone to have their own private driver is the quintessential symbol of status in the competitive market of on-demand rides. Want to be picked up in a Lincoln Navigator? A Lincoln Town Car? A Prius or other hybrid car (for those eco-conscious status people)? Uber lets you make the call on your phone. Traveling with your other Uber buddies in the same car? You can split the fare! While Uber may be on the more expensive of the on-demand apps, and if you request a ride during peak times (late nights on the weekends), you may be subjected to a higher fee due to limited demand. Not to worry, you can check out your fare estimate before confirming your pickup within the app! Want to help your buddy who got stranded and lost their wallet? You can request an Uber pickup to their location and save their night from further misery! For you Uber First-Timers, you’ll get $10 off your first ride upon creating an account!


Have you seen cars roaming around town with the pink mustaches?  Behold Lyft, your friendly neighborhood driver. Although you may not ride in a fancy car, you get a mandatory *fistbump* upon pickup! If you want to have a social conversation, Lyft is perfect for giving you the “homie” feeling of riding in your buddy’s car by having you sit in the passenger seat. Lyft allows almost anyone to be a driver (with a vehicle 2000 or newer) and unlike a base fare for a taxi or Uber, your payment is based on “donations” to the driver, although you will still be prompted for a recommended fare for your ride. Lyft will be cheaper than Uber and is supposed to be 20% to 30% cheaper than taking a regular taxi cab. Was your driver awesome? Donate more! Was your ride crummy? Donate less! It’s all up to you!


Skeptical about safety? No problem! California has become the first state to regulate ride-sharing services. California’s Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), created a category for companies that “provide prearranged transportation services for compensation from using an application to connect passengers with drivers using their own personal vehicles.” CPUC’s new category regulates ride-sharing companies such as Uber or Lyft by requiring them to satisfy requirements such as safety and insurance requirements, criminal background checks, complete driver training, and must have liability insurance coverage.



Image

Saturday, September 21, 2013

Old School Nostalgia...

Image

(source: here)

Found this on the internet a few weeks back and I own no copyrights to this image, but I just thought this image was so amazing it needed to be shared, especially in memory of Hiroshi Yamauchi.

Rest in peace.

Thursday, September 19, 2013

'Tube-y Thursdays: Tesla Battery Swap vs. Audi Gas Refuel

What's new and awesome on the 'tube?

The following is a video of Elon Musk's Tesla battery swap compared to refueling an Audi.







Pretty amazing stuff!

Tuesday, September 17, 2013

Techie Talk Tuesdays: Google Drive

Google Drive:


ImagePlatforms: Mac, PC, Android, iOS


Price: Free(!)

Google drive is a file synchronization, storage, and sharing system. The application can be downloaded for free on your computer, tablet, and phone. Google drive is a great cloud system where you can backup your notes, photos, and music, and access them anywhere, so you don’t need to worry about your notes if your computer is lost or if it breaks.

The Drive application creates a virtual cloud-based “drive,” similar to a folder, with a storage space of 15GB that you sign-in to, using your Google login. Unlike competitors, the “drive” automatically syncs files copied into the folder through Google’s cloud storage system so that the files can be accessed through the web by any computer or mobile device. On your mobile device you can upload files from your phone’s media player and photo gallery to the cloud, access documents you uploaded via your computer, or even create new documents and spreadsheets.  You can also make the files “available offline” which can be convenient in areas without mobile data.

And that’s not all- Google Drive is also home to Google Docs, which allows creation of documents and spreadsheets with real-time editing and collaboration with other users. One caveat – while one may be tempted to substitute a need to purchase document software like Microsoft Office or Apple’s Pages, the limited formatting capabilities make it impractical for formal writing. However, Google Docs are great for group study sessions or outlining with its real time editing ability. Individuals can add and edit a file at the same time while everyone with a link to the document can see the editing. Also, if someone accidently deletes a portion of the document, the documents can easily be restored to a previous version. Once the document is completed, the document can be downloaded as a pdf or a word document to be printed.

Best of all? It’s free.

Monday, September 16, 2013

lovely lucrative lyrics

wordle_lyricsWho knew lyrics were such a lucrative business?

originally seen on digital music news via Prof. Matsuda

Have you ever used songlyrics.com, musicsonglyrics.com or any other lyrics sites? Did you know most of these sites are unauthorized and are violating copyright laws?

According to Professor David Lowery from the University of Georgia, unauthorized lyrics sites are a "booming business" with a "large percentage profiting from major advertisers".

A major problem is that most fans are unaware that lyrics are protected under copyright law and even if they were aware, they would not know where to access licensed lyric sites.

Do you think music publishers are going to crack down on these sites in the future?

Lists, lists, galore! (brain food)

Happy Monday everyone! I've listed a few sites that I frequent so you can frequent it too! (:

Techie sites (aka: where you go to geek out)

1. techcrunch

2. mashable

3. techland

4. wired

5. engadget

6. electronic frontier foundation

Fun sites (aka: where you go to waste time)

1. buzzfeed

2. thoughtcatalog

3. 9gag

4. stumbleupon

5. pinterest

6. youtube

Entertainment & Legal Websites (aka: what's the latest news in the entertainment world?)

1. hollywood reporter

2. above the law

3. abajournal

4. girl gamer esq.

5. lawlawlandblog

Legal Websites (aka: help! I need the law and legal articles!)

1. westlaw (subscription required)

2. lexisnexis (subscription required)

3. Cornell Law (free!)

4. Law Onecle (free!)

5. Oyez by IIT Kent (free!)

6. google scholar (free!)

7. volokh conspiracy (free!)

sorry there are so many lists!

omxo3

omxnn

Monday, September 9, 2013

Data Security & Wireless Payment Systems

How secure are wireless payment systems?

http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/09/paypal-debuts-its-newest-hardware-beacon-a-bluetooth-le-enabled-device-for-hands-free-check-ins-and-payments/

KINGDOM HEARTS HD 1.5 ReMIX Official Launch Event - Sunday 9/8/13

Image

This past Sunday was the Official Launch Event for Kingdom Hearts 1.5 ReMIX that was at the Anaheim Marriott. Image

My friend and I arrived at 11:15am even though the event was scheduled for 12pm and the line was long!

Image

But we met some really cool people dressed in awesome costumes! Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

I should make a shirt that says, "I waited in line for 5 hours in the sun, and all I got was this stupid poster." Except it's not a stupid poster and it was an interesting experience.

Lesson learned: get to these kind of events E-A-R-L-Y!

Saturday, September 7, 2013

"Be curious...

"Be curious. Read widely. Try new things. I think a lot of what people call intelligence just boils down to curiosity."
~Aaron Swartz

"Disruption is ...

"Disruption is like an earthquake. It has no purpose. It has no values. It has no organizing principle. It has no direction. And it has no leadership. I think we have to change the name of this conference. This is not what we want to bring into the world.
What we want to bring into the world, is revolution.

Revolution has values. Revolution has purpose. Revolution has direction. Revolution has leaders. Revolution looks at the intersection ahead and pushes people to do the right thing."
- Jack Dorsey

"Every life is ...

"Every life is a piece of music. Like music we are finite events, unique arrangements. Sometimes harmonious. Sometimes dissonant."
- Hannibal

Kingdom Hearts Axel Commission by Sketchcraft

so this amazing artist Rob Duenas, also known as sketchcraft, drew me this gorgeous picture of Axel from Kingdom Hearts.

To see more of his amazing art, click hereKingdom Hearts Axel Commission by Sketchcraft

1098147_582545551788396_86146878_n 534209_582932338416384_72011488_n602020_584390978270520_2069430062_n47045_582559535120331_2144963970_n

Disney Unveils Another Trailer for Kingdom Hearts HD 1.5 ReMIX

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6evXfWypM2A&feature=share&list=UUiiRfR-7GZKOkMGjyktxxIA

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 32 (2003)

Intel Corp. v. Hamidi, 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 32

Under Cal Law, Trespass to chattels does not encompass, e-mail that neither damages the recipient computer system nor impairs its functioning.

Reasoning:

  • Such an electronic communication does not constitute an actionable trespass to person property, i.e. the computer system, because it does not interfere with the possessor’s use or possession of, or any other legally protected interest in, the personal property itself. 

  • Loss of productivity is not an injury to the company’s interest in its computers, which worked as intended and were unharmed, and do not cause anymore harm than reading an unpleasant message in one’s mailbox.


Here no trespass to chattel because not INTERFERING or INTERMEDDLING with server.

  • Different from “spam” because spam overloads computer systems and hurts functionality of company’s email system whereas here, it is about the contents of the messages. 

  • POLICY: “Impairment by content” threatens to stretch trespass law


Facts: Hamidi (D) a former employee of Intel Corp. (P), sent unsolicited e-mail messages to Intel (P) employess over the company intranet, criticizing Intel’s (P) employment practices. Caused neither physical damage nor functional disruption to the computers, nor at any time did they deprive Intel of the use of its computers, but the content of the messages caused discussion among employees.

Rules: Under California Law, trespass to chattels does not encompass an electronic communication that neither damages the recipient computer nor impairs its functionality. 

Tort of trespass to chattels defined: allows recovery for interferences with possession of  personal property “not sufficiently important to be classed as conversion, and so to compel the defendant to pay the full value of the thing with which he has interfered.” …Under Cal Law, trespass to chattels “lies where an intentional interference with the possession of personal property has proximately caused some injury either 1) to the chattel, or 2) the plaintiff’s rights in it.”

Under Cal. Law, intangible intrusions on land, including electromagnetic transmission, are not actionable as trespasses unless they cause physical damage to real property, since Hamidi did not physically damage servers, it cannot be considered trespass to land.

Dissent: Intel has spent millions of dollars to maintain and develop computer system. Hamidi used intel’s property to display his message.

More? 

Case Brief:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/mainCaseScreen.cfm?dist=3&doc_id=710358&doc_no=C033076/

Supreme Court Case Summary: 

Relevance: Common law trespass does not apply to computers absent actual damage.