You are currently browsing suffolkmcls’s articles.
Suffolk University is hosting an upcoming event to discuss the legal aspects of social networks. This continuing legal education conference is aimed at professionals who represent 
companies using social media for marketing or who design and implement social media programs for businesses and nonprofit organizations.
Attend and Learn:
- How to Design and Regulate Social Networks
- What Lawyers and Business Executives Need to Know About Protecting Their Company’s Copyrights, Trademarks, and Trade Secrets on Social Media Sites
- How to Protect Rights and Avoid Liability for IP on Social Networks
- How to Draft and Enforce Terms of Service Agreements for Users
- How to Minimize Employment Law Risks in Social Media and Liability for User-Generated Content
- How to Comply with International Social Media Regulations
Event Details:
- When: Friday April 13th
- Where: Suffolk Law School
- Cost: $175 – $200 for attorneys and free for students
- Registration
You’re invited to join the Suffolk University Media Law Group and the Rappaport Center at Suffolk University Law School to a conversation with Brooke Gladstone on how media drives society’s view on politics. This free event runs on Tuesday, March 20th from 4-6 pm. Registration link: http://influencingmachine.eventbrite.com/
During times of national importance, such as political elections, answering this question becomes increasingly taboo. Ms. Gladstone, current managing editor and co-host of NPR show On the Media, has an inside view of media’s machinations, and will speak of her perspective on the matter.
In her latest book, The Influencing Machine, her cartoon figure conducts readers on a fascinating tour of media history, debunking with wit and savvy the notion that ”the media” is an external force beyond our control.
Friendly debate on this topic and the ethics, morals and laws that have grown around political expression are expected; come hungry for intellectual food for thought and a reception to follow!
By Brian Lynch
Here’s a look back at the some of the top media law stories from 2011:
INTERNET PIRACY REGULATION
New Version of ‘Stop Online Piracy Act’ as Controversial as Ever | The Hollywood Reporter
Fight the Blacklist: A Toolkit for Anti-SOPA Activism Created by the Ever-vigilant EFF | EFF
SOPA Supporter: If You Use DNSSEC You Can Ignore SOPA/PIPA | Tech Dirt
Compromise: SOPA | Future of Internet
The Good and the Bad of the New OPEN Bill From Wyden And Issa | Tech Dirt
Lawmaker Opposition to SOPA Grows | Washington Post
More And More People Speak Up Against SOPA | TechDirt
Why Can’t PROTECT IP Supporters Just Admit that It’s about Censorship? | Tech Dirt
OCCUPY WALL STREET COVERAGE
Media Can Avoid NYPD Arrest by Getting Press Pass They Can’t Get | Wired
Know Your Rights & Protect Yourself: A Cell Phone Guide for Occupy Wall | EFF
NEWS OF THE WORLD PHONE HACKING SCANDAL
Quick guide to the News Corp hacking scandal | Reuters
News Corp. Scandal | Bloomberg
News Corp: Phone-Hacking Scandal Could ‘Impair’ Business | Guardian
Tipping points: How the News Corp. scandal blossomed | Washington Post
ONLINE PRIVACY
Facebook’s Settlement with FTC Confirmed: Privacy Changes Must be Opt- In | TechCrunch
Facebook Agrees To Submit To Independent Privacy Audits For The Next 20 Years | TechDirt
Examination Of Privacy Policies Shows A Few Troubling Trends | TechCrunch
Amazon to Congress: No, Silk Won’t Invade People’s Privacy | Ars Technica
Kindle Fire Draws Privacy Slam from Congressman | Information Week
FTC Privacy Czar To Entrepreneurs: “If You Don’t Want To See Us, Don’t Collect Data You Don’t Need”
Facebook Accused of Violating US Wiretap Law | The Register
Report: Apple, Google Collecting Location Data on Users | USA Today
NET NEUTRALITY
Why Net Neutrality Is Better for Business | PC World
D.C. Court Will Hear Net Neutrality Lawsuits | National Journal
Public Interest Groups Across Spectrum Oppose Net Neutrality Regs | Technology Liberation Front
The FCC’s Net Neutrality Rules: A Tale of Two Internets | New Media Rights
FCC Finalizes Net Neutrality Rules; Sets Start Date of Nov. 20 | Reuters
CAMERAS IN THE COURTROOM
Suffolk Media Law Joins the Call to Televise Heathcare Law Arguments | Suffolk Media Law
Internet Video Archive of Court Proceedings Challenged in Massachusetts | Suffolk Media Law
Arrested for Videotaping Inside New Hampshire Courthouse (video) | Pixiq
CAMERAS ON THE POLICE
Chicago Police Investigated for Seizing Camera, Deleting Video Footage of Arrest | RCFP
N.H. Judge Upholds Right to Record Police in Public | The New American
Milwaukee Police Chief Says He’ll Meet Media Following Photographers’ Arrests | Journal Sentinel
A Victory for Recording in Public! | Citizen Media Law Project
Police Sued for Wrongfully Arresting Bystander Videotaping Officers | Suffolk Media Law
RIGHTHAVEN
Righthaven Loses (Big Time) In Colorado As Well | Tech Dirt
Righthaven’s Copyright Trolling is a Bankrupt Idea | Citizen Media Law Project
Copyright Troll Righthaven Goes on Life Support | Wired
Court Slams Righthaven (Again); Refuses to Let It Back into Democratic Underground Case | Tech Dirt
Righthaven Rocked, Owes $34,000 After “Fair Use” Loss | Ars Technica
Righthaven Facing Class Action Lawsuit Over Its Sham Copyright Transfer And Lawsuits | Techdirt
By Brian Lynch
Communication Law Internship Funding:
The Federal Communications Bar Association Foundation is now accepting applications for funding of unpaid 
communications related legal internships. The Foundation will award several stipends to law students employed as unpaid summer interns in positions with the FCC and other Federal, state and local government agencies with a connection to the communications industry.
For more information and an application, click here FCBA.org.
Internet Policy Fellowship:
The Google Policy Fellowship program offers undergraduate, graduate, and law students interested in Internet and technology policy the opportunity to spend the summer contributing to the public dialogue on these issues, and 
exploring future academic and professional interests. Fellows will have the opportunity to work at public interest organizations at the forefront of debates on broadband and access policy, content regulation, copyright and trademark reform, consumer privacy, open government, and more.
For more information and an application,click here google.com.
By Sarah Nashat
The draft Bill introduced by Republicans this past week contains language that would severely hinder allocation of unlicensed spectrum for use and innovation in products requiring such spectra to function. In the past, items ranging from baby monitors to anything utilizing WiFi capability were developed by experimenting with unlicensed spectra. In the future envisioned by this Bill, a group or party interested in using an unlicensed spectrum must outbid a party seeking to purchase license to such spectrum at mandatory spectrum auctions. The FCC will not have the authority to allocate a spectrum for unlicensed use without first collecting competitive bids for the spectrum at auction.
Proposed paragraph 17 “Allocation of Spectrum for Unlicensed Use”, found under Title 1 section 104(a)(3) of the Bill, would amend 47 USC 309(j) at paragraphs 6(a) and 7(a), and explains that in order for the FCC to allocate spectrum for unlicensed use it must first offer the unlicensed spectrum at auction. Bids placed to allocate the spectrum for unlicensed use compete with bids to purchase license to the spectrum, and must outbid the highest offer to purchase license for the spectrum. The Bill offers a small chance for success by allowing the bids for unlicensed use to aggregate and compete with the highest bid for licensing; however, legal director at Public Knowledge Harold Feld brings up the problem that companies using unlicensed spectrum are generally new, small companies that would not be able to compete with an established giant seeking control over innovation in the market. Could you and all your buddies together compete with AT&T in a wireless spectrum bidding war?
The innovation-stifling nature of Paragraph 17 is not the only troublesome aspect of the Republican Bill. Net neutrality compliance requirements are gutted for companies that purchase license to spectra at auction, meaning that the purchaser is not obligated to maintain an even playing field in its spectrum range once a block of spectra becomes licensed via auction. The Bill also removes spectrum caps, and offers waivers of FCC regulations for some companies that auction off their spectrum holdings.
As of July 14th, the Democrats’ response “Public Safety Broadband and Wireless Innovation Act of 2011” section 301 (b) (1) limits competitive auctions to licensed spectra only. While the Democrats’ Bill saves some power for the FCC to allocate spectra for unlicensed use, it remains vague or silent on some of the other troubling aspects of the Republican Bill.
Photo “please-stand-by” used without permission from Flickr user x-ray delta one under CC BY-SA 2.0
By Rasheed Townes
Fans of Ice-Cube might remember the memorable line “It’s on like Donkey Kong,” from his song, “Now I Gotta Wet’Cha”. You might have heard it in the trailer to the movie Scott Pilgrim versus the World. Well now Nintendo, publishers of the “Donkey Kong” video game, wants to file a trademark for this phrase “in honor” of its latest iteration.
While this phrase was never mentioned in the actual game, Nintendo would like to lay claim to this phrase as its own trademark. Reasonable people seem to disagree over whether this is a valid claim for Nintendo, however, since the phrase only references the trademarked character and not a marketing campaign.
Photo “Donkey Kong” courtesy of Flickr user toiletbowel martini, licensed under CC BY 2.0.
By Brian Lynch
Recent data breaches may spark the new Congress to increase privacy protection for Internet users. U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas) has indicated Internet privacy would be a priority in an effort to increase the prosperity of the online economy. The Federal Trade Commission has investigated several cases of mishandled data and is expected to release recommendations for new privacy laws and guidance for web companies.
Last week Google was let off the hook by the FTC for privacy violations after collecting unsecured wireless data while conducting its Street View project. This week the UK also played nice with Google after a similar violation but not everyone in Britain would like to see Google get off so easy.
More information on online privacy can be found at the Electronic Privacy Information Center and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
By Brian Lynch
Should violent video games enjoy free speech protection? That is the issue the U.S. Supreme Court takes up this week in a case involving a 2005 California law that bans selling violent video games to children. The state argues that the harmful effects violent games have on children outweigh any artistic or creative merit of the games. The gaming industry counters by arguing that a broad ruling could lead to overly restrictive self-censorship and further restrictions on other media industries. Critics have readily pointed out that the law was signed by none other than The Terminator, also known as California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has starred in numerous violent action movies. A transcript of today’s oral arguments can be read here (.pdf). Case filings and additional coverage can be found here and Attorney Stephen Riden from Boston firm Beck Reed & Riden posted an analysis of each side’s arguments here.
Photo “DualShock 3” courtesy of Flickr user joo0ey, licensed under CC BY 2.0.
By Brian Lynch
The Not So Little Search Engine That Could continues to gobble up business, but faces a challenge with its latest acquisition. Several travel websites have joined in opposing Google’s proposed takeover of ITA Software Inc. The travel sites have formed the coalition FairSearch.org in an effort to persuade the U.S. Department of Justice to block the acquisition. ITA Inc.’s software is used by many travel websites and provides flight comparison data. The companies opposed to the acquisition claim Google will corner the market on travel searches by controlling the software its competitors rely on. Google’s position as the Web’s dominant information gatekeeper creates a potential dilemma for travelers seeking the best deals on flights. Will travelers have enough information to make informed purchases? Or will Google’s market dominance and control of ITA Inc. leave fewer choices for those travelers? The Wall Street Journal details the dispute here.
By Morris A. Singer
The Google-Verizon plan for net neutrality has sparked controversy in recent weeks, and has hailed support from a variety of places as well.
Some like it because it proclaims that wired Internet should be neutral. Others (mostly mobile service providers) like it because it exempts wireless services from those principles of neutrality, requiring instead only that wireless service providers disclose their non-neutral practices to users.
Many have asked why the difference. That is, why should wireless networks be treated any differently than wired networks?
The Google-Verizon plan is predicated on a fundamental assumption: Wired networks and wireless networks are fundamentally different; they share common ground only in providing access to the Internet.
Why is this the case?
On NPR yesterday, Peter Suderman, columnist and associate editor at Reason magazine and Reason.com, offered one argument: Wireless networks already offer consumers a different experience than wired networks.
That is, on a wired network, a user can attach any device and communicate freely (as in speech).
On a wireless network, a user must settle for the range of applications available on (or compatible with) his mobile device, and relegate himself to the methods of communication these applications allow.
On AT&T’s blog last week, Joan Marsh, AT&T Vice President of Federal Regulatory, offered a different argument: While bandwidth in the wired world is limited only by the amount of optical fiber (wiring), wireless devices are limited by the physical constraints of the electromagnetic spectrum.
That is, if you want more bandwidth on a wired network, install a thicker wire. If you want more bandwidth in a wireless network, the best you can do is communicate on additional frequencies, and there are only a limited number of divisions of the spectrum of frequencies between audible sound and visible light.
This author offers a different (and perhaps more cynical) argument: Within the context of the net neutrality debate, wireless networks are different from wired networks because wireless networks are exclusively controlled and provided by large, corporate entities with both vested interests in controlling their traffic.
Wired networks, on the other hand, are controlled by a combination of corporations, non-profit educational institutions, and governments.
Here is a brief look at each.
Suderman: Wireless Networks are Device-Limited
As the wireless world exists now, to access the Internet, a user must purchase a mobile device and subscribe to a plan offered by a major carrier. Only certain devices are available on a given carrier. Only certain applications are available on a given device.
Therefore, Suderman argued, wireless networks are inherently non-neutral. A user must agree to a particular set of rules before getting on the network. The user does so by signing a contract for a subscription to the wireless network, often in conjunction with the purchase or upgrade of a mobile device.
This much makes sense as a positive description of wireless as it exists today. But is there any basis to view Suderman’s description as normative?
At its core, Suderman’s argument is as follows: In the absence of a solution to the net neutrality debate, wireless networks have developed in a particular fashion. Therefore, the job of the arbiters of the debate — those charged with making normative decisions about net neutrality — is to proclaim that things should be as they are.
Aside from its merits as a preservation of the status quo, this argument is a fallacy because it relies on the assumption that the role of lawmakers and those who promulgate regulation is to codify what already exists. It holds that something should be a certain way because that is the way it already is. A great deal of the history of American lawmaking goes against this notion.
Furthermore, when viewing the argument as merely a positive statement, rather than a conclusory notion, it actually serves as evidence of why net neutrality on wireless networks is important.
A user of wireless networks already suffers from a lack of neutrality. He must choose a carrier, and therefore, choose from a limited menu of devices, and an even more limited menu of applications to run on their mobile devices. When doing so, he must sign a contract for an extended period of time, often a year or more.
When the user’s needs change, or the service provider’s non-neutral practices change, the user is nonetheless stuck in a network that does not meet his needs. The fact that wireless networks are non-neutral is more of a problem than a solution.
Marsh: Wireless Networks are Spectrum-Limited
Wireless networks run using radio communication in a set of frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum. The devices transmit in a frequency space between audible sound and visible light, and share the space with other kinds of devices, the most well-known of which are probably televisions and FM radios.
As the Marsh argument goes, there is only a limited amount of space available in the spectrum for mobile devices. Unlike in a wired network, where laying more cable can create more bandwidth, in wireless networks, the spectrum is the “cable.” No more of it will ever be created.
This is true. However, it is not the entire picture.
There are several options available to the wireless service provider facing bandwidth limitations on the spectrum. First, the service provider can sell to fewer subscribers and charge more per subscriber.
This option is likely to disappoint consumers, but it is important to acknowledge. Non-neutrality on wireless networks is not the only solution.
Another option is a practice known as multiplexing. Multiplexing, quite simply, is the division of a communications channel into smaller components, each of which can carry its own, independent signal.
On fiber networks, for example, a line can be multiplexed by transmitting different colors of light. To simplify significantly, a red light can represent data from one user, a green light from another, and a blue light from a third. When the light received at the other end of the fiber is white, the device at the other end knows that all three users have transmitted at the same time. (Red, green, and blue light together is white light.) This kind of light-division multiplexing would increase the capacity of a fiber three-fold.
There are similar options available in wireless communications. One is frequency-division multiplexing. Another is amplitude-division multiplexing. Yet a third is time-division multiplexing. Without getting into the details, it is sufficient to say that multiplexing has the potential to increase the capacity on existing spectrum space.
A third option is to improve the density of the service through additional antenna installation, and run the traffic from the service points over fiber or other wired platforms. In essence, this practice would reduce the number of subscribers in a given area by reducing the area served by a single antenna.
None of these options is the expertise of this author. However, it is important to note that these (and likely other) options are available to wireless service providers, at a cost. Although the spectrum is limited, it is doubtful that it is beyond human creativity to develop neutral solutions.
Singer: Wireless Networks are Owner-Limited
This author suggests that the real limitation on wireless networks is the willingness of their corporate owners to expend the money to develop higher-capacity platforms.
The owners who provide wireless services have an interest in doing so cheaply, at the highest profit, to as many subscribers as possible. This involves using cheap, available technology and awarding premium services to high bidders.
It may be a sound business decision for a service provider to lobby for the ability to provide non-neutral wireless services. It is much harder to accept that non-neutral service is a requirement of the continued proliferation of mobile devices.
Morris is a Suffolk University Law School alumnus and publisher of the blog, LawAndContent.com.
Recent Comments