Articles Posted in Internet Law

Published on: | by

A celebrity’s image is the most vital marketable quality in the business of entertainment. Indeed, this image, like other forms of intellectual property, is very much the product that a famous personality offers into the economy for a profit. However, while other forms of intellectual property enjoy protection under copyright and trademark laws, an image is vulnerable to all sorts of cyber attacks that can cause severe and irreparable damage. Nonetheless, a celebrity can prepare and prevent cyberspace threats by speaking with an attorney to establish a plan to monitor online activity and prevent harm. Furthermore, acting immediately at the first sign of an attack can prevent on-going and permanent harm to reputation.

What is the Threat to Celebrities In Cyberspace?

Since a famous personality’s name, image, and reputation make up the underlying fame and fortune, any attack can harm the ability to work successfully. However, taking steps to secure a reputation is especially difficult in the case of public figures. For example, First Amendment free speech protections allow for public discussions involving public figures. Accordingly, it can be even more difficult to bring defamation claims where the victim of offensive remarks is in the public eye. Unfortunately, this harmful publicity can limit a celebrity’s capacity to secure future employment. Musicians face the added threat of the unauthorized use of their work product, especially over the Internet. While some use, even though it is unauthorized, provides free publicity over the Internet, this use can prove to be harmful to economic viability. Also, leaking new music allows users to learn about an artist’s new work, but it takes away from the artist’s ability to make a profit.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

A business’s trade secrets are an essential component of its foundation, growth, and development. A trade secret is any sort of confidential and proprietary information that a company seeks to protect from unauthorized access.  For example, a trade secret, includes a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process (e.g., computer algorithm).  By definition, a trade secret is only valuable so long as it remains a secret.   In recent years, as businesses conduct more transactions over cyberspace, there is a higher probability of trade secret theft or loss. However, the constantly changing nature of cyberspace, and the anonymity users enjoy over the Internet, make protecting trade secrets a complex issue.

What is the Threat to Trade Secrets in Cyberspace?

Trade secrets in cyberspace, which involve software and digital information, can be misappropriated or wrongfully taken and used without detection.  It is also known as “cybertheft.”  For example, an online user has the capacity to view and distribute trade secrets without detection within minutes.   Online message boards allow users to post trade secrets over the web anonymously.  By concealing their identity, it is possible to steal a trade secret without detection.  Indeed, the courts continue to issue decisions that recognize individual privacy rights in digital trade secret misappropriation cases, preventing the trade secret owner from seeking legal remedies. Furthermore, in the past, trade secret theft was intended to secure an economic advantage between competing companies. However, recent cases, such as Ford Motor Co. v. Lane, illustrate that trade secrets are vulnerable to dissatisfied employees who distribute trade secrets only to harm an employer.  On a side note, hackers may even steal and distribute trade secrets simply to show off their technical skills.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In the aftermath of the Snowden scandal, and an on-going concern for cyber-surveillance practices, the United States Congress and the American people are increasingly concerned that their online privacy is at risk. The government continues to wrestle with the possibility of including mandatory data retention standards for Internet Service Providers (“ISPs”). While this poses a serious threat to individual privacy, supporters of data retention argue that these standards are essential to national and personal safety.

What Is Data Retention?

Data retention is the practice of ISPs monitoring and storing information tied to an IP address, including, but not limited to, browsing history. ISPs that also provide email services may store email logs, but not the content of those emails. ISPs also have the capacity to identify which third-party email service providers are tied to an IP address. Law enforcement agencies could require ISPs to turn over this information in the course of a criminal investigation. PRISM, the National Security Agency’s avenue of access to online data, is similar to traditional data retention practices, except that PRISM targets cloud-based services. Currently, there are no mandatory data retention policies in America. However, governmental pressures and international influences may be pushing America to join Europe in its data retention practices. In March 2013, James Sensenbrenner, Republican House representative from Wisconsin and the author of the Patriot Act, argued that America should adopt ISP data retention laws similar to those in Europe. Indeed, the Justice Department has fully supported data retention policies. The Justice Department argues that the lack of data retention policies dramatically hinders law enforcement efforts. However, regardless of whether the government implements policies requiring ISPs to store personal data, ISPs currently maintain the freedom to monitor and track online activity. Indeed, Time Warner currently retains user data for six months, and Verizon retains data for eighteen months. Then, under the Stored Communications Act, which is codified under 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq., the government may access this data.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In January 2012, the European Union (“EU”) introduced a draft regulation that would make it more difficult for companies within the EU to gather personal data from consumers. In the wake of recent developments that the National Security Agency has been involved in questionable surveillance practices in the United States, the European Union is certainly taking steps to provide greater individual privacy protections.

What Are the Terms of the New EU Personal Data Directive?

The right to privacy is an important component of the European Convention on Human Rights, a highly developed area of law in Europe. According to the new regulation, institutions may only access personal data if the purpose for gathering the personal data falls within three categories. First, a company or agency may collect and process personal data if the individual is first informed. For example, among other preliminary requirements, the individual must initially be aware of the purpose for gathering personal data. Germany’s chancellor, Angela Merkel, has urged the EU to adopt additional restrictions to require internet companies to reveal details about the companies they will be sharing personal data with. Next, a company or agency may collect personal data if the data is “adequate, relevant and not excessive” in relation to the purpose for the collection. Additional restrictions may apply if the data is more personal, such as when the data goes to religious beliefs, political affiliations, sexual orientation, or racial association. Finally, personal data may be gathered and processed for a “legitimate purpose.” However, this is a very narrow category and the reasoning behind the data collection must be very specific. As an added safeguard, any data collected within the EU may only be transferred to countries outside the EU if those countries provide substantial levels of personal privacy protection as well. This requirement would pose an obstacle for social media websites, such as Facebook, that exist across the world and gather information from users to share with companies that operate under different privacy-protection standards.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

On August 14, 2013, the FBI confirmed its investigation regarding a sextortion case involving several women, including the recently-crowned Miss Teen USA, Cassidy Wolf. While the FBI did not release any information regarding the investigation or potential suspects, they did say the investigation has been going on for several months. Do you store personal information and photographs on your computer? Do you or your children use computers with webcam capabilities? If so, you might be at risk for cyber-stalking and sextortion. At the Law Offices of Salar Atrizadeh, an attorney with experience and knowledge in the most recent cyberspace law can help you learn how to protect yourself against cyber attacks such as these.

What Is the Extent of the Sextortion Threat In the Community?

Cassidy Wolf had said in an interview that she had received an email from an anonymous source who claimed to have nude pictures of her. The anonymous source then attempted to extort her, threatening to make the pictures public otherwise. Apparently, a hacker was able to break into Cassidy Wolf’s computer, turn on her webcam, and take pictures of her. For Miss Wolf, this controversy came after the hacker cyber-stalked her through her computer.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The Federal Trade Commission proposed a revision to the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (“COPPA”), which became effective as of July 1, 2013. As the FTC and state attorneys become increasingly stricter with online child protection standards, this rule will mean that online activity will be monitored more closely for inappropriate material. Indeed, this new rule has expanded what inappropriate material entails. Do you have a child with access to the internet? Are you a business entity that collects user information over the internet for marketing purposes? In both cases, this new rule may apply to your activities.

What Does the New Rule Add to COPPA?

First, the new rule substantially expands the meaning of “personal information.” Prior to this revision, personal information applied to an online user’s name, physical address, email address, telephone number, and social security number. However, the revision expands this category to include significantly more information. Online contact information will now include identifiers for instant messaging, Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and video chat users. Additionally, online screen names will now be considered “contact information” because such information may be used to locate minors on the web. To this same effect, any online information that can help locate the physical address of a minor will constitute “personal information.” This information will include photographs, videos, and audio files that contain a child’s picture or voice. It will also include information such as an Internet Protocol address (“IP address”) or mobile device identification names, since they can help locate users as well. Indeed, any information that configures with geographic locations, such as street names and cities, will constitute “personal information.” The rule also limits the extent to which companies that gather “personal information” from minors can share this information with third parties.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The Internet has become an expansive worldwide network and users have the freedom to access this network from multiple devices and locations. In light of this growing network, many forms of commerce have also moved to the Internet. E-commerce or commercial transactions that take place over the Internet, have become a growing part of international markets and businesses. However, this growing market has also led to the proliferation of online fraud. In addition, by gaining access to this worldwide network, also referred to as the Internet, online fraud is able to harm users and markets on a larger scale.

What Factors Indicate Online Fraud?

In order to begin to prevent online fraud with e-commerce, it is important to be able to recognize online fraud. There are certain indicators that can help online consumers recognize fraudulent activity. First, multiple orders within the same day, hour, or minute from the same user, address, or credit card will generally point to fraudulent activity. Also, shipping addresses to suspicious locations, such as abandoned buildings or P.O. boxes, may be indicators of fraudulent activity. Anonymous email accounts associated with online users placing purchases indicate a higher likelihood of online fraud. These indicators do not necessarily suggest that the online activity is absolutely fraud. Instead, these indicators help protect online consumers by arming them with early signs that can help prevent future harm.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

The U.S. Copyright Act, codified under 17 U.S.C. § 101 et seq., protects copyrighted works from infringement from wrongful users. This federal law aims to protect unique works while still allowing for creativity and future creations. To that end, individuals charged with copyright infringement can avoid liability entirely under a valid fair use defense. The fair use exception, which is codified under 17 U.S.C. § 107, provides that instances of work that fall within this exception do not constitute infringement.

How Do Courts Apply the Fair Use Exception?

Since courts have not adopted a test or set of factors to determine when the fair use defense applies, judges will look to the totality of circumstances on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the defense is appropriate. This exception allows the courts to avoid applying the statute so strictly that it prevents creativity. In Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communication Services, Inc., the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found the fair use exception applies when a work is used for “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship or research.” Under the fair use exception, courts must consider the following factors: (1) purpose and character of the use; (2) nature of the work; (3) amount of the work used in comparison to the entire work; and (4) effect of the use on the potential value of the work. However, this is not a total list of considerations and courts will often look to any unique factors that affect the outcome of the case.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

What is personal jurisdiction? It is the court’s authority to determine a claim affecting a specific person. Generally, providing any type of data or information on the world-wide-web (i.e., Internet) is insufficient to subject a person to personal jurisdiction in each state wherein the date or information is accessed. However, a nonresident’s online activity, must be expressly targeted at, or directed to, the forum state in order to establish minimum contacts necessary to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction. In general, personal jurisdiction may not be exercised against a nonresident whose website was not directed toward any state.

If a non-resident defendant publishes statements that fall under the category of defamatory comments concerning the plaintiff on a website, the effects of which were clearly directed at the forum state, result in sufficient contact with the forum to warrant the assertion of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. On the other hand, the publication of defamatory comments concerning the plaintiff on a website is not, by itself enough to support the exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant (e.g., when an article was not specifically directed to residents in the forum state, or was not primarily directed at the plaintiff in that state).

Our readers must keep in mind that the tort of defamation can be committed in the jurisdiction (i.e., the state), even if the message was not directed there, if it has effects in that state.

Continue Reading ›

Published on: | by

In the recent years, numerous Internet forums (aka “online message boards”) have provided a place for Internet users to discuss issues, entities/companies, and persons or individuals, who are often disguised in some form of anonymity. Sometimes, the targets of disparaging comments react by filing lawsuits in state or federal courts against unidentified (“John Doe”) defendants for claims such as violation of securities laws, breach of confidentiality agreement, and libel. Generally, in such disputes subpoenas are submitted to the message board hosts so to identify the authors. Notwithstanding the various challenges, the courts differ in their treatment of such subpoenas.

For example, see Jon Hart & Michael Rothberg, Anonymous Internet Postings Pit Free Speech Against Accountability, WSJ.com (March 6, 2002).

In Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 712 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) Mobilisa, a communications company, filed a complaint against numerous “John Doe” defendants who had submitted an anonymous e-mail to Mobilisa’s management team about the company’s founder and CFO’s conducts. Thereafter, Mobilisa attempted to compel The Suggestion Box, which was the service provider through which the e-mail was submitted, so to obtain the person’s identity who had submitted the e-mail. The trial court granted Mobilisa’s request and ordered The Suggestion Box to reveal the identities of the anonymous senders. Thereafter, The Suggestion Box and the senders of the e-mail appealed the trial court’s decision.

Continue Reading ›