Month: November 2022

As part of a symposium, I was asked to write a short paper about how the Internet has changed since the mid-1990s when Section 230 was adopted. I chose to address the 1990s stereotype that most early Internet users were well-meaning and trying to build communities, a presumption that seems mockably quaint in the 2020s. I explain why that presumption prevailed in the Internet’s early days, what’s changed since then, and the operational and regulatory implications of that loss of innocence. Check out my forthcoming draft, entitled “Assuming Good Faith Online.”

* * *

The abstract:

Every internet service enabling user-generated content faces a dilemma of balancing good-faith and bad-faith activity. Without that balance, the service loses one of the internet’s signature features—users’ ability to engage with and learn from each other in pro-social and self-actualizing ways—and instead drives towards one of two suboptimal outcomes. Either it devolves

We are pleased to present the second installment in a multipart series designed to help right holders and importers better understand the opportunities and obligations that attach to intellectual property rights (IPR) in the U.S. Customs regulatory environment. The focus of this installment is on copyrights. Owing to the diversity of considerations wrapped up in the management of copyrights in international trade, the topic will be addressed in two parts. The first part, set forth below, lays a foundation by addressing the copyright infringement levels recognized by U.S. Customs and Border Protection and their attendant enforcement regimes. The second part will complete the copyrights-trade picture by discussing enforcement relief options and presenting best practice tips for both right holders and importers.

Introduction

Copyrights protect original works of authorship against unauthorized copying. Original works of authorship include literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, pictorial, graphic, sculptural, and architectural works, motion pictures and other

LGBTQ+ content creators “claim that despite YouTube’s purported viewpoint neutrality, defendants have discriminated against them based on their sexual or gender orientation, identity, and/or viewpoints by censoring, demonetizing, or otherwise interfering with certain videos that plaintiffs uploaded to YouTube.” In 2021, the court dismissed the lawsuit with limited leave to amend. In response to those amendments, the court dismisses the case again. Much of the opinion reiterates the prior ruling.

California state constitution claim: “no court has extended the Pruneyard line of cases, which concern physical property, to the Internet.” If you’re still invoking Pruneyard analogies for online content moderation, I question your motives.

Unruh Act. “The parties do not dispute that the Unruh Act applies to a website that hosts videos posted by members of the public.” The court continues:

Plaintiffs’ allegations that defendants intentionally discriminated against them because of their sexual orientation in violation of the

The facts in this case are so bizarre and outrageous that I had to read them several times:

On September 30, 2018, Z.D. underwent an examination and medical testing in the emergency department of a Community facility in Indianapolis. Afterward, Community was unable to contact Z.D. via telephone to notify her of her test results. So on October 5, the emergency department’s patient resource coordinator wrote a letter to Z.D. that was printed on Community letterhead and included her diagnosis and suggested treatment. The letter was placed in an envelope bearing Community’s preprinted return address and the handwritten mailing address of Jonae Kendrick, who was a classmate of Z.D.’s high-school-aged daughter. Kendrick received the envelope in the mail, opened it, and posted the letter on Facebook, where it was seen by multiple third parties, including Z.D.’s daughter. Z.D. learned about her diagnosis from her daughter, and she paid Kendrick $100

Harris Bricken attorney Jonathan Bench will be attending the HLB North American Advisory, Tax & Audit Conference next month in San Diego. He will be joined by Mike Criddle, Tax Partner at Eide Bailly LLP, to host two informative panel discussions.

The first panel, titled “When to Call the Lawyer: Legal Structuring and Litigation Support in International Transactions and Accounting,” will cover international transaction and dispute resolution issues. The second panel, titled “Legal Update for Cryptocurrency and Other Web3/Blockchain Transactions,” will cover tax and legal issues. Each panel will conclude with a Q&A. Learn about each panel below.

When to Call the Lawyer: Legal Structuring and Litigation Support in International Transactions 

Good international lawyers understand that clients receive the best possible outcomes when accountants and lawyers are both engaged early and working from the same general agenda. Unless a client’s business model is IP-heavy, the client will often engage