December 2014

Hollywood is still obsessed with breaking the Internet

[Commentary] Hollywood isn't happy with the status quo of the online piracy environment.

New documents purporting to be from the Sony hack show that the Motion Picture Association of America still sees SOPA-style site blocking as a primary goal, a stance that has put them increasingly at odds with Google. Blocking pirate sites is such a focus that the MPAA often rules out more incremental efforts at fighting piracy on the grounds that they would stand in the way of the group's ultimate goal, which is to restrict users from browsing certain web sites. The industry may have lost the fight to make SOPA law, but it’s still aggressively pursuing SOPA’s goals.

US Faces Tough Questions in Apple E-Books Antitrust Appeal

A US government lawyer faced tough questioning in an appeals court as he sought to defend a judge’s ruling that Apple conspired with five publishers to raise e-book prices.

In arguments before the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, some judges appeared sympathetic to Apple’s contention that it engaged in pro-competitive conduct when in 2010 it entered an e-books market largely dominated by Amazon. Amazon at the time had a 90 percent market share. Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs asked a Department of Justice lawyer why it was wrong for the publishers to get together to defeat a “monopolist” that was using “predatory pricing.” Malcolm Stewart, the Justice Department lawyer, replied that no publisher on its own would have entered into the deals with Apple unless they were conspiring to drive up e-book prices.

Apple, E-Books and the Amazon Juggernaut

[Commentary] Although the government’s antitrust case has superficial appeal, the record suggests that Apple’s actions may have benefited rather than harmed the welfare of e-book customers. The district court failed to pay serious attention to two issues. First, although the point of a price-fixing conspiracy is generally to increase prices, there is compelling evidence that the shift from a wholesale to an agency model resulted in a decrease in the average prices of e-books. Second, it would be misguided to judge the competitive effects of Apple’s behavior solely based on e-book prices. Rigid per se rules to assess the legality of new arrangements in dynamic technology markets pose a serious risk of retarding innovation and harming the interest of consumers.

[Daniel Crane is an Associate Dean and Professor of Law at the University of Michigan Law School]

Can Sony sue media outlets who publish the stolen Sony documents?

[Commentary] Does Sony have a legal leg to stand on in demanding that media outlets not publish or otherwise use the stolen Sony documents? Probably not, at least as to most of the information that media outlets would want to publish. Sony is unlikely to prevail -- either by eventually winning in court, or by scaring off prospective publishers -- especially against the well-counseled, relatively deep-pocketed, and insured media organizations that it’s threatening.

[Eugene Volokh is a professor at UCLA School of Law]

Why Publishing Stolen Sony Data Is Problematic but Necessary

[Commentary] It’s getting harder for me to report on the contents of Sony’s leak without wondering whether I’m somehow complicit with these nefarious hackers by relaying the details of seemingly every pilfered terabyte. While I found a lot to question about the rationales, ultimately I’ve arrived at an uneasy peace with why the leaks just can’t be ignored.

In an industry where public relations attempts to control the flow of information with a very heavy hand, there’s something very liberating about watching that hand get blown to smithereens by the Sony hack. But that doesn’t make exploiting that destruction right. Every reporter has fantasized about stumbling upon a treasure trove of secret documents. So when a story such as Sony is spread in front of us in all its unprecedented scope, it’s instinctive for us to pounce. But this time around, acting on that reflex just doesn’t feel right…even though it isn’t wrong.

The Sony Hack and the Yellow Press

[Commentary] As a screenwriter in Hollywood who’s only two generations removed from probably being blacklisted, I’m not crazy about Americans calling other Americans un-American, so let’s just say that every news outlet that did the bidding of the Guardians of Peace is morally treasonous and spectacularly dishonorable.

[Aaron Sorkin is a screenwriter and playwright]

Tech heads call for digital privacy law

Top tech executives want Congress to update a decades-old privacy law to clarify that the government can’t use a warrant to nab e-mails or other digital information stored abroad.

Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith noted that one major digital privacy law dates back to 1986, which has created troubling uncertainty about people’s privacy protections and companies’ legal obligations. The issue is especially salient for Microsoft, which is currently locked in a legal battle with the Justice Department over a warrant for data stored on a server in Ireland.

Where Tech Giants Protect Privacy

[Commentary] The world’s seemingly insatiable appetite for all things tech has made many tech companies among the most profitable companies in the world. But selling these products has also placed them largely at odds with global privacy rules that go far beyond what American lawmakers currently demand at home.

While the tech companies often rely on lengthy (frequently incomprehensible) consent forms and First Amendment rights to protect themselves against claims of misuse of their users’ online information, that defense does not hold up in large parts of the world, including Malaysia, South Africa, Brazil, Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan and Argentina. That’s because the right to privacy -- given almost the same weight as freedom of expression -- is taken more seriously abroad, notably in Europe. Faced with the growing need to cater to a global audience -- and to contend with international regulators who have put privacy front and center -- American companies are being forced to comply with stricter protection standards that are frequently more onerous than those at home

Next-generation tracking technology could be in your gadgets soon

Sophisticated tracking technology, the likes of which you might associate with governments or big companies, may soon be in consumers' hands, homes, cars and local stores.

If it works as described -- a big "if," of course, -- the technology developed by a small-but-established UK company called Apical could detect not only people, but determine what they are doing, where they are going and even what they may be thinking. The technology, dubbed Spirit and part of the growing and fast-developing field of computer vision, could be used for everything from helping consumers shoot better videos to helping the local coffee shop improve its sales.

Hidden devices scrutinize employees

Employers are rushing to embrace the Internet of Things, with its array of smart gadgets, to keep watch on their workers. Studies contend that these devices help reduce theft, boost productivity and weed out lazy, incompetent or abusive employees. Since 2007, experts say, the extent of employee monitoring has increased steadily due largely to the growing array of data-gathering gadgets known as the Internet of Things. Tracking workers could become more intrusive in the future, with some tech experts and privacy advocates believing that bosses eventually will seek to monitor employees with smart clothing and perhaps even ingestible devices or implantable microchips.

Benton

Search