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!