As the saying goes, death and taxes are both certainties — as is the fact that politicians lie. But another near universal certainty is that Marvel will totally freak out whenever it gets the slightest inkling that its intellectual property is threatened. The latest head-scratching example of this was yesterday’s leak of a trailer for The Avengers 2, which Marvel promptly DMCA’d.
Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
* The best way to catch drunk drivers is to give them something to crash into. [Legal Juice]
* Chaumtoli Huq, a former general counsel to the New York Public Advocate, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that NYPD officers arrested her for waiting on the sidewalk outside a restaurant. She says she was targeted for being Muslim. [Gawker]
* In somewhat related news, Prawfsblawg pointed me to this interesting Slate piece on the effect that body-worn cams — the en vogue solution to police misconduct pushed by many including Huq’s old boss — really have on policing. [Slate via Prawfsblawg]
* Google paying $19 million to settle the FTC suit over kids making in-app purchases. It was going to be a $5 million settlement, but the FTC told Google that they would let them skip level 410 in Candy Crush if they kicked in another $14 million. [Washington Post]
* Some people have a problem with duct-taping kids to force them to take naps. Kids are growing up soft these days. [Lowering the Bar]
* And guess what? The D.C. Circuit is hearing the Halbig case en banc. Nullifying any argument that the Supreme Court act immediately to resolve a circuit split. Seems like someone predicted this outcome while the mainstream media wet themselves over a Supreme Court showdown. [Constitutional Accountability Center]
* Adam Steinbaugh got a DMCA takedown notice for criticizing a company for… overactive DMCA takedown notices. He replies eloquently. [Adam Steinbaugh's Blog]
I’ve already written one piece about Cory Doctorow’s incredible column at the Guardian concerningdigital rights management and anti-circumvention, in which I focused on how the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention laws allows companies to make up their own copyright laws in a way that removes the rights of the public. Those rights are fairly important, and the reason we have them encoded within our copyright laws is to make sure that copyright isn’t abused to stifle speech. But, anti-circumvention laws combined with DRM allow the industry to route around that entirely.
But there’s a second important point in Doctorow’s piece that is equally worth highlighting, and it’s that the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention laws make all of our computers less safe. For this to make sense, you need to understand that DRM is really a form of security software.
The Internet naturally devolves to Hitler references. Call it Godwin’s Law. Call it reductio ad hitlerum if you’re into the whole unnecessary use of Latin thing (and you’re lawyers, so you totally are). But with the advent of the Internet, Downfall video became inevitable.
And with bored lawyers seeking Internet-based distractions at their desks (or law library carrels), the legal Downfall video was even more inevitable.
Above the Law has linked to some of these before (for example here and here), but I figured I’d treat the readers to a collection of some of the finer videos here as part of my role as the editor covering the tech beat.
If you have others, link them in the comments. I’m sure someone out there in the middle of a two-week document review somewhere will appreciate it….
Ed. note: This post appears courtesy of our friends at Techdirt. We’ll be sharing law-related posts from Techdirt from time to time in these pages.
We’ve covered the Stephanie Lenz / dancing baby / fair use case for years — but now it looks like there’s finally going to be a trial to consider if Universal Music can be punished for sending a DMCA takedown notice on a video of Lenz’s infant son dancing to 29 seconds of a song by Prince, which Lenz asserts was clearly fair use.
If you haven’t followed the case, it’s been argued back and forth for years. At one point, the court ruled that a copyright holder does need to take fair use into account before sending a DMCA takedown, but that there needs to be “subjective bad faith” by Universal Music in sending the takedown. In other words, Lenz (and the EFF, who is representing her) needs to show, effectively, that Universal knew that it was sending bogus takedowns. The EFF has argued that willful blindness by Universal meant that it had knowledge (amusingly, using precedents in copyright cases in the other direction, where copyright holders argue that willful blindness can be infringement)….