One year ago, as part of a plan to expand the capacity of the Internet’s domain name system, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) began accepting applications for more generic top-level domain names (gTLDs). Currently, the well-known gTLDs include .com, .org, and .net, as well as some of the country indicators that have been repurposed, such as .tv and .es. Adding gTLDs will allow for exponentially more domain names. During the new gTLD application period, ICANN opened the door to any combination of three or more letters in most major alphabets: .blue, .school, .mcdonalds, .law or .商城. The possibilities might seem almost endless, but, on “Reveal Day,” ICANN disclosed a list of 1,930 applications for new gTLDs
internet
President or Pirate? The DMCA Takedown War of the Presidential Campaigns
In what has been described by some as over-zealous enforcement of copyright, BMG (the large German publisher) forced YouTube to take down a Mitt Romney campaign video because it included footage of President Obama singing Al Green’s “Let’s Stay Together.”
France Gives the “Feu Vert” to Google Books
The United States has yet to reach an agreement over the Google digital books project, but France, a literary haven and copyright devotee, has forged ahead.
With what its supporters have praised as a tool for bringing out-of-print books into the hands of new readers, the Google digital books project has sought to digitally scan collections of current and out-of-print books to create a massive digital collection on Google’s database.
Google Disclosures
Last month Google announced a new addition to its website’s Transparency Report.
Google has decided to release information on the number of requests it recieves from copyright owners (and the organizations that represent them) to remove Google Search results that allegedly link to infringing content.
Google’s senior copyright counsel Fred von Lohmann writes on Google’s blog, “We believe that openness is crucial for the future of the Internet. When something gets in the way of the free flow of information, we believe there should be transparency around what that block might be.”
Viacom v. YouTube Brings About a Sea of Change in the Safe Harbor
Over the past decade, websites and Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have learned to rely on the takedown procedures of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) in order to generally avoid copyright infringement liability imposed by content owners.
ISPs have been able to shield themselves from all liability form their users posting infringing material by having a proper takedown system in place. But, a recent Second Circuit case undermines that level of confidence in takedown procedures.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals is the first U.S. court to decide that ISPs may still be liable for copyright infringement even after complying with the takedown provisions of the DMCA.
As a result, the underlying questions remain: should intermediaries be held liable for their users infringing actions?
If so, then to what extent? Where does the law now draw the line? How can a website owner or ISP best protect itself when posting content provided by others?
The DMCA is known for allowing ISPs, under certain circumstances, to avoid copyright infringement liability for activities that would otherwise lead to secondary liability for copyright infringement.
German Court Ordered Google to Do More to Prevent Copyright Violations on YouTube
A German court ordered Google to install filters on its YouTube services in Germany in order to detect and stop people from accessing copyright infringing material.
While not holding Google fully liable for the uploaded material, Judge Heiner Steeneck did say that the company needed to do more to stop violations. The court order issued on April 20, 2012, however, is for Google a happy departure from the request made by GEMA, the German association that imposes and collects royalties on recorded media. GEMA had demanded that Google sort through its entire online music archive and remove all copyrighted material from its system. The judge rejected the request.
Facebook Asserts Trademark Rights Over the Word “Book”
If the day comes that Facebook applies to register “book” as a trademark, is the USPTO likely to reject its application? Perhaps Facebook is better off leaving that question open rather than documenting any USPTO denial.
Does Facebook actually even use “book” as a mark as its new user agreement implies? If it does, is “book” sufficiently arbitrary, and not just descriptive, such that it can be recognized as a protectable mark? What is truly a “book” anyway in the technology of today’s publishing? We could quickly get philosophical.