Group items tagged

Rudd's internet filtering proposal is legally flawed. William's outlines simply how our existing classification system has its own problems and is unsuitable to classify internet content .

It's great to see that there is a legal argument against the filter, but it isn't something that Government is likely to take into consideration as they can easily get around it by defining the legalities surrounding the internet to be different to what we have currently. It proves their hypocrisy, but I doubt that concerns them...

Am I being sued? that's the first thing that comes across our minds upon noticing legal notices or letters..This article tells us not to panic but thoroughly analyze what the document says and have an in depth understanding out of the doc. If the situations seems like you are really getting a lawsuit, the next step is to seek immediate assistance from a legal advisor or lawyers. The most important thing to bear in mind is that to ensure our rights are not infringed. I find the article sound and most useful.

The emergence of nanotechnology and cascading media nowadays have resulted to clash of two newly found realms. New discoveries of Nanotechnology and shifts on how people define intellectual properties had imposed legal and non-legal questions like how to classify and who should benefit from the technology.

Surprisingly, a Spanish judge has ruled today in favor of a file-sharing website since P2P networks as a mere transmission of data between Internet users, would not violate, in principle, any right protected by Intellectual Property Law. Furthermore, he decided that "offering an index of links and/or linking to copyright material is not the same as distribution." The decision was based on the notion that the file-sharer doesn't make any direct or indirect profits off the site

Article from PC World dated 19/3/2010 Talks about the the enduring legal battle between Viacom and Google over intellectual property rights which have been (arguably) 'violated' by the Video sharing website, Youtube. This is another prime example of the indefinable nature of the digital medium and the problems inherent in resolving issues of ownership and distribution of information in the context of the internet. The inability to fully implement control in free flowing information forums again raises the question who can really be made responsible for copyright infringements?

Steve Jobs (Apple) and Eric Schmidt (CEO Google)... Publicity stunt to deflect press about legal battles between the two companies'? 

online documents recording legal rulings and disputes.

The UK Government are proposing to introduce a Digital Economy Bill.  The owners of copyright material will be able to pursue individuals who are sharing their content and take legal recourse.  Persistent offenders can eventually be blocked by their ISP. "Persistent" offenders will have received 50 notices before the Government can request that the ISP block their access to the internet. Sites that host material / content that breaches the bill will be issued with a series of take down notices. This impacts all sites - not just those whose servers are based in the UK.  If the site does not comply with the take down notice it will be possible for the site to be blocked within the UK. 

Overview found on legal site about the Spam Act. The release covers examples of what the Spam Act is all about, breaches, consequences of breaches and also how companies and individuals can protect themselves (however this is more a sales pitch).

Google blames Chinese-backed groups for attacking blogs of political critics. But who can stop this actions, who has the power to, within the current legal framework, do so?

Hosted by the Sydney Law School, is a seminar to discuss the very modern challenges of private international law jurisdiction in cyberspace. Very apt for this week's topic of Borders. When: 6pm-7.30pm, Tuesday 4 May 2010 (registration and refreshments from 5.30pm) Where: Sydney Law School, New Law School Building, Eastern Avenue, Camperdown Campus Registration: $77 incl GST (full-time student concession $44 incl GST)

Law School talk on legal challenges of the interwebs tomorrow: The Sydney Law School will tomorrow host a seminar to discuss the very modern challenges of private international law jurisdiction in cyberspace. "Trade and commerce have become increasingly international - we no longer live in a world where merchants typically do business with others located in the same country. Businesses are just as likely to look to potential partners overseas, and will frequently conclude their transaction over the internet… without ever meeting or speaking to each other," says Associate Professor Chester Brown.

One of the Acts under which the exact laws are outlined in regards to telecommunications providers and their responsibility towards the consumer and state. Dry and very 'Legal' but useful.

This article eloquently discusses the importance of the internet in our lives and addresses issues of the digital divide. Internet use has become so woven into everyday life that some technology experts say online access should be legally protected, even to the point of considering it a human right. ''It's a social inclusion question,'' said Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre executive director David Vaile

Following on from the BBC's survey of 27,000 people in 26 countries which resulted in 79% of adults regarding internet access as a human right, David Vaile from the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre and Brett Solomons, formerly of GetUp and now AccessNow.org, have both put their weight behind this approach. Some countries already include internet access as a consumer legal right and other countries regard it as a human right.

On Thursday April 1st, the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) - the Canadian equivalent to the SEC, put forth allegations against Agoracom.com an online investor relations forum for seeding fake conversations throughout their investor message board community. The allegations describe a scenario of more than 24,000 fraudulent posts made by 670 different accounts In the amount of time it took to create all these fake posts and different accounts, maybe they could have done something constructive? People don't seem to realise how much their actions are tracked on the internet. Beyond embarrassing, it's also becoming a grounds for legal action

Looks at the recent proposed amendments by the federal government to the 25-year-old Sex Discrimination Act which aim to give greater legal protection to victims under 16 of online sexual harassment and cyber-bullying. Critics say the proposed changes are "too little to late."

Discussion of data housing locations and legal/regulatory implications.

This article is criticizing the attack lunched by Anonymous. It said, the any protest against the Mandatory ISP filtering plan is encouraged, however, the bring down government website is an illegal way to make political statement, and will render the protest null and avoid. Instead, even the anti-censorship community advocate legal way to protest the Mandatory censorship. In my opinion, this attack is interesting, although it is illegal, it doesn't cause big cost, just threw little troubles to government website, it can be considered as a prank, not a crime. Anyway, no one can be convicted, as it is an anonymous attack by hacker, lol.:)

What are consumers really agreeing to when they purchase something online and have to agree to pages and pages of small print? How do we control the power of the retailer and educate consumers, so they are not suckered into agreements that negatively effect them? Can this retailer really own souls? Will their be legal action as a result of these agreements?

Apparently the showdown between Adobe and Apple might result in a lawsuit in the weeks to come. Adobe has 95% Web browser market penetration, whilst apparently Apple has a monopoly on mobile applications, to the tune of 99.4% of downloads. It seems like some sort of synergy must be reached between the two companies.

A Brazilian judge has fined Google in Brazil over a comment posted by an anonymous user stating that a priest is a paedophile. Raises the question of who is responsible for defamatory comments - the publisher (in this case Google) or the poster. Reminds me of a similar case of one of my fave blogs, Kitsune Noir - a music and design blog from the US. A poster made a critical comment about a design that the blogger had written about and the designer threatened legal action against Kitsune Noir.