Category: Mass Communication Law

Grokster all over again?

I’m not a lawyer, but two related stories caught my eye today:

First, on the question of whether “making a file available” counts as copyright infringement, a New York court says it does.  Obviously this isn’t the final word, but the pessimist in me sees this as the start of a trend. On one hand, libraries and video rental stores could be liable for making materials “available,” but on the other hand what good is a right to “distribution” without the ability to the places that a copyrighted work is available.

C-Net forgets Grokster today in reporting about Muxtape and Mixwit, two services that allow users to upload files to share with others. While the article seems to say that the services are likely safe under the safe harbor provisions of the DMCA. However, quite unlike YouTube or Google, these services might be seen as creating a business model around infringement. I don’t completely agree with that standard, but haven’t we heard this before?

Free speech a personal burden?

JuicyCampus champions free speech, AGs claim it’s a fraud

I have heard of JuicyCampus, but this is the first time I’ve really checked it out.

For those who have not yet had the pleasure of coming across JuicyCampus, the site serves as a public forum for college students to anonymously gossip about others. As you might imagine, this has bred an explosion in malicious, accusatory, and otherwise not-nice postings—often naming gossip victims by full name and school.

The Attorney General of New Jersey is investigating the site, but it might be a tough case.  The site’s use policy (which nobody reads) states that personal information and libelous statements cannot be posted, and that all subpoenas will be answered.  This, combined with some protection from the CDA, might give them legal protection–but the question here is extra-legal.  Would the average person go to the trouble of getting a lawyer to file a libel suit?  No.

This leaves us with a system where we rightly need to protect free speech, but because of technological change, push more people to be concerned about the law. Then again, a site that entices the user to “C’mon. Give us the juice” sounds a little like entrapment.

First Amendment story unfolds online

Wikileaks.org has been ordered (last week!? how did I miss that?) to be taken completely offline in the United States because of a number of documents that “allegedly reveal that [a Swiss] bank was involved with money laundering and tax evasion.” While it appears that the site is still available, but many are calling the injunction unconstitutional. I’m surprised I haven’t heard the words “prior restraint” used yet. You make the call: is this just commercial speech, or is posting to wikileaks a political act? If it’s political, is the “heavy burden” against censoring someone before they publish met? Is wikileaks acting as the “press?” Must they to receive protection?
This is another one to watch