IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog
  Institutions
     
  Tanks
     
  Blogs
     
  Mags
     
E-commerce (see all subjects)
 

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Why the Viacom v. YouTube Summary-Judgment Ruling Will Be Reversed.

After reviewing the commentary on Judge Stanton's summary judgment ruling in Viacom v. YouTube, I note the lack of substantive defenses of its legal merits. See Viacom Int'l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62829 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (the "Viacom Opinion"). This Opinion held that because the original founders of YouTube had responded to takedown notices, they were protected from civil liability for copyright infringement by § 512(c) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA")—even if they were also intentionally inducing mass copyright piracy like the Defendants in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

But this Opinion will be reversed on appeal for at least two reasons. First, no judge can legally find something so daft as a civil safe-harbor for criminal racketeering lurking in the unspoken implications of the "tenor" of excerpts of legislative history. Second, no judge can legally hold that the DMCA adopted terms that judges used to convey the lack of any knowledge requirement in order to tell judges to impose an "item-specific" knowledge requirement. As singer Katy Perry might put it, unless the DMCA was "a [law] bipolar," it did not use "in" to mean "out" or "up" to mean "down...."

Consequently, the Viacom Opinion is not really a huge win for those who want foreign corporations to be able profit by intentionally inducing mass piracy. Indeed, apart from the usual applause from the usual suspect—and a switch-of-sides at Slate—no one seems to be praising or even defending the substance of Judge' Stanton's legal analysis. And with good reason—it is indefensible.

Continue reading Why the Viacom v. YouTube Summary-Judgment Ruling Will Be Reversed. . . .

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 3:10 PM | Copyright, E-commerce, IP, Innovation, Internet

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (3)

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

Was the Tenenbaum Statutory-Damage Verdict Unconstitutional? Only If College Guys Are Irrationally "Risk-Averse...."

On July 9th, Judge Nancy Gertner issued an Order holding that the $22,500/song jury verdict assessed against file-sharing, oath-violating, evidence-concealing, family-framing willful mass pirate Joel Tenenbaum was unconstitutionally excessive. Judge Gertner then reduced the award by 90% to $2,250/per song—the maximum award that her Constitution would permit. See Sony BMG Music Ent. v. Tenenbaum, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68642 (D. Mass.).

But those who get their copyright news from the Internet might be shocked that the record labels have just dared to appeal Judge Gertner's allegedly brilliant legal analysis. After all, Public Knowledge hailed Judge Gertner's reasoning as a triumph of common sense. And at the blog TechDirt, Mike Masnick gushed, "Gertner knows this is going to be appealed, and she put a lot of effort into making the case for why this ruling was excessive, in hopes of having her reasoning help carry the later appeals."

Such fawning is silly. Judge Gertner's reasoning is far too profoundly flawed to have much chance of surviving appellate review. I will thus note three defects in Judge Gertner's analysis that should prove fatal. None is merely technical; all involve basic disregard for settled law, the facts, or reality itself.

Continue reading Was the Tenenbaum Statutory-Damage Verdict Unconstitutional? Only If College Guys Are Irrationally "Risk-Averse...." . . .

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 11:28 AM | Copyright, E-commerce, IP, Internet, Mass Media

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (1)

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

Old Wine in an Old Bottle: LimeWire and Mark Gorton Held Intentional Inducers of Massive Piracy

I just read Judge Kimba Wood's 59-page summary-judgment Opinion in Artista Records, LLC v. Lime Group LLC. It held LimeWire LLC and its parent company, the Lime Group, liable under Grokster for intentional inducement of mass piracy. It also held Lime Group CEO Mark Gorton personally liable for his decade of deliberate contempt for the federal civil rights of artists and those who invest in their art.

Substantively, the Lime Group inducement ruling tracks the reasoning in Grokster. Indeed, it tracks so closely that Gorton and LimeWire surely knew that they were liable under Grokster by July of 2005. Nevertheless, they chose to keep on intentionally inducing piracy for five more years. One hopes that Judge Wood will keep that in mind when crafting injunctive, forfeiture, and monetary remedies. Otherwise, two other aspects of the decision are particularly interesting.

Continue reading Old Wine in an Old Bottle: LimeWire and Mark Gorton Held Intentional Inducers of Massive Piracy . . .

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 11:54 PM | Copyright, E-commerce, IP, Innovation, Internet

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (1)

Friday, April 23, 2010

ACTA: USTR Was Right, and the Histrionics Were Wrong--Again.

The Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) just released a draft of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). After spending several years at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, advising USTR on the copyright-related provisions of many proposed and enacted trade agreements, my review of the draft ACTA text confirms, (as well as any draft can), that ACTA is precisely what USTR has said consistently during both the Bush and Obama Administrations: ACTA is an efficiency-enhancing effort that can be executed as an Executive Agreement because it will require no change--repeat, no change--in existing U.S. law.

Indeed, this is why I rarely write about, blog about, or closely follow the ACTA negotiations. ACTA is an important efficiency-enhancing effort intended to facilitate international trade. But--by definition--it will not address any of the most important unresolved questions about how to reconcile the benefits of enforceable copyrights and the benefits of the Internet.

To the contrary, in the ACTA negotiations, developed nations that have already joined and implemented all of the major multilateral IPR-related international treaties--like the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights ("TRIPS"), the Berne Convention, and the WIPO Copyright Treaty--are trying to see whether they can agree on what an good implementation of these already-ratified, already-implemented treaties should require.

While such an agreement could further trade among developed nations, it would be even more beneficial to developing and least-developed nations. Most developed nations, including the U.S., already require their preferred trading partners to fully implement the leading international IPR treaties, but each such developed nation now has differing ideas what an "good" implementation of these treaties requires. As a result, any country that wants to increase trade with developed nations in the Americas, Europe, and Asian must now separately negotiate with many nations about the efficacy of its implementation of existing IPR treaties, and it may have to revise its IPR laws repeatedly.

ACTA seeks to reduce or eliminate the resulting delay and duplication of effort. In effect, ACTA seeks to answer the following question: Given that many developed nations already require their preferred trading partners to complete a "good" implementation of the existing IPR treaties, shouldn't they try to reach as least broad agreement on what a "good" implementation of existing IPR treaties requires? If so, then any nation interested in updating its IPR laws in order to better protect its own creators and improve its trade relations could know what to do in order to facilitate trade with many of the world's most attractive trading partners. Consequently, developed nations that already incorporate support for IPR protections into their international-trade strategies could promote trade, reduce waste, avoid petty disputes, and better promote improved IPR protections if they could agree on what a really good implementation of the existing international IPR treaties should require. This is, perhaps, the critical benefit that ACTA seeks to achieve.

This is why the structure and the text of ACTA so closely resemble the structure and text of the IPR Chapter of many existing bilateral and multilateral U.S. Free Trade Agreements ("FTA")--none of which required the U.S. to amend its existing IPR laws. Those similarities are no coincidence. In effect, ACTA attempts to reach at least a general consensus on what the IPR chapters that many developed nations already incorporate into their trade agreements ought to contain.

Nevertheless, while developed-world IPR laws are so generally similar as to permit such consensus, they are not identical. Consequently, the ACTA negotiators must craft language specific enough to provide precise guidance, (as the IPR chapter of a developed-world trade agreement would today), while accommodating some of the differences in the national laws of developed, IPR-exporting nations--each of which is quite convinced that its laws already reflect a "really good" implementation of the existing multinational IPR treaties.

This is why the Internet teapot-tempest over ACTA merely confirms that USTR should be strongly commended for its longstanding decision to pursue ACTA as an Executive Agreement. For precisely the reasons just mentioned, the language of ACTA will almost certainly closely, but not precisely, track the language of the IPR Chapters in those many existing U.S. FTAs. This could have raised legitimate--as opposed to contrived--concerns that ACTA might change to U.S. law. But by negotiating ACTA as an Executive Agreement, USTR eliminated all such legitimate concerns. By definition, an Executive Agreement cannot require any change in existing U.S. law.

Moreover, by negotiating ACTA as an Executive Agreement, USTR not only eliminated any legitimate domestic concerns about ACTA changing U.S. law, it also put all other nations participating in the ACTA negotiations on notice: if the U.S. agrees to particular language, then that is because it has concluded that its existing domestic laws already implement that language. Therefore, should the ACTA negotiations conclude successfully, no co-party to ACTA can argue, credibly, that it could possibly have thought that existing U.S. law failed to implement the Agreement.

These observations are subject to a caveat: the released draft of ACTA is an early-stage draft consisting mostly of bracketed counter-proposals. Multiparty negotiations among many global leaders in international trade never proceed quickly. Nevertheless, the released draft suffices to confirm that ACTA is precisely what USTR has said it is throughout the past two Administrations, and that USTR should be commended for providing both domestic and international clarity by pursuing it as an Executive Agreement.

Finally, a word about ACTA and "secrecy." Negotiating drafts of ACTA have been no more and no less "secret" than negotiating drafts of any other proposed U.S. trade agreement negotiated in the last few decades. And such "secrecy" is perfectly sensible: negotiating nations do not published their negotiating drafts and strategies for the many of the same reasons that poker players do not "publish" the contents of their hands during a game--"transparency" is good; crippling your own negotiators is not. Nor is the resulting "secrecy" that secret: Any Internet reporter who wanted to review an earlier draft of ACTA would have had to do little more than sign a simpler version of the sort of nondisclosure agreement (NDA) that gadget reporters routinely sign in order to get an early look at the latest iWidget.

I may have more to say later about the shrill, dishonest, juvenile histrionics that have passed for most Internet "commentary" on ACTA. For now, I need only congratulate the shriekers for the success of their latest campaign to convince even more federal officials that most Internet commentary on almost matters relating to intellectual property rights, (other than those that protect technology companies or open-source software), will tend to consist of shrill, dishonest, juvenile histrionics.

Indeed, the histronics over ACTA recall the histrionic wailing that filled the Internet during the lead-up to the Supreme Court decision in Grokster. Back then, many of the same groups and individuals now shrieking about ACTA were shrieking that holding the most blatant commercial copyright pirates on the Internet liable for the intended consequences of their own actions would crush innovation and outlaw, (to cite but a few examples), iPods, transistors, Legos, broadcast radio, The New York Times, and--worsf of all--Silly Putty. Today's ACTA histrionics seem equally rational, balanced, informed, and thoughtful.

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 10:37 AM | Copyright, E-commerce, Global Innovation, IP, Internet, Trade, Trademark

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Friday, April 16, 2010

Longing for Tax Day Simplicity

With another income tax day behind us, this year's penance may be the last "simple," "unfettered" return we file in a while.

The CBO projects that with current policies in place, addled by a wave of retiring Americans, our tax burden as a nation (in terms of revenues received through income, payroll and excise taxes) will rise 1.5%, to nearly 20% in 2020. That growth aside, revenues will still fall nearly 5% less than Uncle Sam will be spending at that time.

Thus, according to a growing coterie of pundits and officials, more taxes are on the way (spending cuts would be nice, but I digress).

Continue reading Longing for Tax Day Simplicity . . .

posted by Mike Wendy @ 4:51 PM | Capitol Hill, E-commerce, Generic Rant, Privacy, State Policy, Taxes

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (1)

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

PFF Briefing 4/16: Super-Sizing the FTC & What It Means for the Internet, Media & Advertising

Please join us for this Progress & Freedom Foundation luncheon briefing on Friday, April 16, 12-2 pm in the Capitol Visitor Center, Room SVC 208/209 at E Capitol St NE & 1st St NE. I'll be moderating a discussion of the growing powers of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and what it might mean for consumers, advertisers, media creators, and the Internet.

As I've discussed herehere and here, financial reform legislation passed by the House (HR 4173) and now under debate in the Senate would give the FTC sweeping new powers to regulate not just Wall Street, but also unfair or deceptive trade practices across the economy. This could reshape regulation in a wide range of areas, such as privacy, cybersecurity, child safety, COPPA, and child nutrition, affecting media online as well as offline. Unfortunately, as Adam and I have noted, there seems to be a disconnect at the FTC between concerns over the future of struggling media creators and efforts to step up regulation on a number of fronts, especially privacy. The FTC has also asserted expanded authority to regulate "unfair" competition in its lawsuit against Intel, based solely on the FTC's Section 5 unfairness authority rather than traditional antitrust law. PFF has assembled a group of expert panelists--veteran FTC practitioners, scholars and insiders--to discuss these issues and more. Here's our panel:


  • Jack Calfee, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research (AEI) & author of Fear of Persuasion: A New Perspective on Advertising and Regulation (1998)

  • Maureen Ohlhausen, Partner, Wilkinson Barker Knauer, Consumer Protection Law and Competition Law practices, & 11-year FTC veteran

  • Jim Davidson, Chair of the Public Policy group, Polsinelli Shughart PC

  • Stu Ingis, Partner, Venable LLP

Continue reading PFF Briefing 4/16: Super-Sizing the FTC & What It Means for the Internet, Media & Advertising . . .

posted by Berin Szoka @ 5:26 PM | Advertising & Marketing, E-commerce, Privacy, The FTC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (1)

Monday, March 29, 2010

Business Insider Attacks James Cameron for "Whining" That Piracy Undermines the Risky Studio Investments That Enabled Cameron's Films To Enrich Millions of Lives

When you read a "business magazine" edited by persons with at least a GRE-level grasp of modern economics, you will not encounter headlines like "Walmart Whines That It Would Be Richer If Poor People Didn't Shoplift," or "DirectTV Whines That Signal Theft Keeps 'The NFL Sunday Ticket' from Raking In More Cash," or even "Capitalist Stooge Steve Jobs Whines That iPod Counterfeiting Keeps Him from Becoming Even Richer."

Predictably, real business magazines and journalists don't publish such quasi-Marxist drool because it is so vacuous. As economist Joseph Schumpeter famously argued, profits enrich particularly thoughtful, creative capitalists because market economies drive producers to innovate. Instead of engaging in a Punch-and-Judy battle to "perfect" competition against non-innovative producers of fungible goods, smart producers can make risky investments in order to innovate and differentiate their products so they can--if consumers really love their work--earn significant profits, (some of which must be re-invested in the next round of risky innovation).

Consequently, real business journalists know that stealing from today's "rich" innovators merely punishes and deters the risky, costly innovation that drives the American economy and creates American jobs. Competent "business magazines" thus reject the economics of dictator Robert Mugabe: they do not smirk and sneer that whenever capitalists innovate successfully and get "rich," then they should not "whine" if others steal from the investors who made the risky investments that let them get rich by innovating.

But Business Insider is not a real business magazine. It has seemingly embraced "Mugabenomics." It appears that Business Insider would thus condemn Steve Jobs if he "whines" about the counterfeiting or shoplifting of iPods. Surely Jobs is now rich enough that stealing from Apple is OK with Business Insider--even though, from the perspective of Apple's investors, the vast sums paid to Jobs are a cost of doing business that reduces their potential profits and their ability to re-invest in more new innovations.

Continue reading Business Insider Attacks James Cameron for "Whining" That Piracy Undermines the Risky Studio Investments That Enabled Cameron's Films To Enrich Millions of Lives . . .

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 12:19 PM | Capitalism, Copyright, E-commerce, Economics, Generic Rant, IP, Innovation, Internet, Mass Media

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (1)

Friday, March 19, 2010

States - Leave No Taxable Opportunity Behind

The recession has been many things to many people. For most of us, these are trying times, to say the least. But like a newscaster or mortician who profits from some of life's worst experiences, the states see the recession somewhat more optimistically than the rest of us.

Sure, in the next fiscal year states face nearly $180 billion in budget deficits, with many in dire straits (as this somewhat hyperbolic article touches upon). Yet, letting no crisis go to waste, this has honed where many of those cash-strapped states are looking for their next meal.

The Wall Street Journal recently noted that the slump has brought back to life an idea that many of us thought had died - requiring e-retailers to collect sales tax from out-of-state customers. The state's new tool of choice? The so-called "Amazon.com tax."

It works like this.

Remote / online merchants that have "local marketing affiliates" (i.e., entities essentially operating website pointers to remote merchants) in a given state, must collect state sales taxes for customer purchases of their products - all because the "local affiliate" in that given state pointed any sale (not even the specific sale) to the out-of-state retailer. This controversial tool (now being contemplated by 6 states, and in effect in 3 others) allows states to get around constitutional requirements of physical presence in a state to collect sales taxes. It also gets around the inconvenient fact that in most states with sales taxes, customers largely ignore their obligations to pay that tax (e.g., use tax) if it isn't collected by the Internet / remote merchant.

Continue reading States - Leave No Taxable Opportunity Behind . . .

posted by Mike Wendy @ 4:24 PM | Broadband, E-commerce, Generic Rant, Internet, State Policy, Supreme Court, Taxes, The FCC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

The Opening Viacom v. YouTube Summary Judgment Briefs: Some First Thoughts

Having just spent some quality time with the opening summary-judgment briefs in Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube Inc., ("Viacom"), I wanted to post a few preliminary reactions. First, the procedure that the Court and parties are using (simultaneous filing of cross-motions for summary judgment) tends to have real benefits, particularly in complex, high-profile cases, but because lawyers usually avoid anticipating their opponent's arguments, it can produce a first round of opening briefs that seem to be arguing the merits of utterly unrelated lawsuits.

Nevertheless, in a well-argued case, (and this one is), you can usually scrutinize these seemingly discordant briefs and discover that both are mostly telling the truth--or, rather, different parts of a larger truth.

Such are the opening briefs of the Viacom Plaintiffs and Defendants. The Defendants' Brief focuses on whether YouTube actually knew that particular videos were infringing and the copyright-respecting and responsible online service provider that YouTube is today. The Plaintiffs' brief focuses on intent to profit from pervasive infringement, vicarious liability, what YouTube was when it began, and what inspired Google to purchase this "video Grokster" from founders who compared it to "napster," and "kazaa."

Continue reading The Opening Viacom v. YouTube Summary Judgment Briefs: Some First Thoughts . . .

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 3:13 PM | Copyright, E-commerce, IP, Internet, Mass Media

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (4)

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

Copyrights in Music Do NOT Exist Only "To Benefit [Matthew Yglesias]"

Matthew Yglesias is the "progressive" mind behind the modestly titled blog Yglesias. In three recent posts, he turned the vast erudition bestowed by his B.A. in Philosophy toward the analysis of the economics of music and intellectual property. Indeed, Mr. Yglesias did so with such profound, if baseless, confidence that he deigned to declare those who disagree with him "absolutely insane."

In The Futile Struggle Against Free Content, Intellectual Property is About Consumers, and Marginal Costs and Average Costs, Mr. Yglesias thus proved publicly a point that research and humility enabled me to discover privately: an Econ-101-level understanding of economics is woefully inadequate to understand almost any real-world market, much less the economics of music or intellectual property. As a result, Mr. Yglesias' posts are useful not because they provide useful insights--they don't--but because they nicely illustrate five fatal mistakes in the economic analysis of intellectual property often made by those whose self-esteem exceeds their self-edification.

Continue reading Copyrights in Music Do NOT Exist Only "To Benefit [Matthew Yglesias]" . . .

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 10:17 AM | Advertising & Marketing, Capitalism, Copyright, E-commerce, Economics, IP, Innovation, Internet, Mass Media, Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (2)

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Copyrights, Copycense, and Nonsense

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 1:56 PM | Copyright, Cyber-Security, E-commerce, IP, Internet, Mass Media, Neutrality, Think Tanks

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (9)

Monday, February 1, 2010

Complementary Goods and Debates about E-Book/Music/Video Pricing

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 11:58 AM | Antitrust & Competition Policy, Books & Book Reviews, Copyright, E-commerce, IP, Innovation, Internet, Mass Media, What We're Reading

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (3)

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

William Patry's "Moral Panic" about MPAA, Dan Glickman and ACTA

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 6:05 PM | Books & Book Reviews, Copyright, E-commerce, Googlephobia, IP, Innovation, Internet, What We're Reading

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (1)

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Amazon's Supposed e-Book "Monopoly" Isn't "In-Scribd" in Stone

posted by Berin Szoka @ 4:18 PM | Antitrust & Competition Policy, E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (1)

Monday, December 7, 2009

Internuts Blame Copyright Enforcement for the Sins of BitTorrent Tracker-Site Operators.

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 5:48 PM | Copyright, E-commerce, IP, Internet, Software, The FTC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (2)

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

A few words about Victoria Espinel, nominee for Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 10:15 AM | Copyright, E-commerce, Global Innovation, IP, Innovation, Trade

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

The DVD Rental Window: Fiddling while Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars Burns.

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 3:05 PM | Copyright, Cyber-Security, E-commerce, Googlephobia, IP, Internet, Mass Media

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Friday, October 23, 2009

Copyright Wars, "Welfare for Authors" and Pedophiles: Part Two of a Reply

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 10:33 AM | Books & Book Reviews, Copyright, Cyber-Security, E-commerce, Economics, Googlephobia, IP, Innovation, Internet, Mass Media, Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Friday, October 16, 2009

Cloud Computing to Grow Rapidly

posted by Berin Szoka @ 12:40 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

The "Moral Panic" of "Copyright Wars": Part One of a Reply.

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 7:20 AM | Books & Book Reviews, Copyright, E-commerce, Googlephobia, IP, Innovation, Internet, Regulation, What We're Reading

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Friday, October 2, 2009

Moral Panics and the Copyright Wars: A Worthless Book

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 12:27 PM | China, Copyright, Cyber-Security, E-commerce, Economics, IP, Innovation, Internet, Regulation

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Section 230: The Cornerstone of Internet Freedom

posted by Berin Szoka @ 10:42 PM | E-commerce, Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Tuesday, July 14, 2009

In Favor of Burdensome Regulations

posted by Mark Adams @ 11:06 AM | E-commerce, Economics, Free Speech, Global Innovation, Innovation, Internet, Internet Governance, Regulation, State Policy, Supreme Court, Trade

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Monday, June 29, 2009

Great Summary of Section 230

posted by Berin Szoka @ 10:01 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Thursday, June 18, 2009

Behavioral Advertising Industry Practices Hearing: Some Issues that Need to be Discussed

posted by Berin Szoka @ 12:29 AM | Advertising & Marketing, E-commerce, Free Speech

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Tuesday, April 7, 2009

Tenebaum, Two-Card Monte, and the Sophistry of Professor Charles Nesson

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 9:48 AM | China, E-commerce, IP, Innovation, Internet

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

Copyrights and New Technologies: Why Copyright Law Should Not Differentiate between "Automatic" and "Non-Automatic" Networks or Copying Devices

posted by Thomas Sydnor @ 8:38 AM | E-commerce, IP, Internet, Internet TV

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Sunday, February 1, 2009

10 Years Ago Today... (Thinking About Technological Progress)

posted by Adam Thierer @ 2:07 PM | Capitalism, E-commerce, Generic Rant, Innovation

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Thursday, January 8, 2009

The Most Important Number for Technology Policy in 2009

posted by Berin Szoka @ 3:48 PM | Capitol Hill, Communications, E-commerce, Internet, The FCC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Friday, October 24, 2008

PFF Launches Center for Internet Freedom

posted by Berin Szoka @ 11:50 AM | E-commerce, Internet, Privacy, Think Tanks

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Monday, September 22, 2008

Nuts and Bolts: Everything You Wanted To Know About Cookies But Were Afraid To Ask

posted by Adam Marcus @ 3:38 PM | E-commerce, Economics, Internet, Privacy

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Tuesday, March 4, 2008

Net gambling & online speech / commerce enforcement challenges in general

posted by Adam Thierer @ 9:37 AM | E-commerce, Free Speech, Gambling, Internet Governance

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

More on Virtual Reality & Property Rights

posted by Adam Thierer @ 9:41 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Wednesday, December 6, 2006

Does Regulation Work?

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 9:27 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Further Internet Governance Antics

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 10:21 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Monday, November 6, 2006

ICANN at Bay!

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 9:13 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Monday, October 30, 2006

More on ICANN

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 10:25 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

The New Independent ICANN

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 1:36 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Friday, July 7, 2006

eBay-Google Battle Over Online Payments

posted by Adam Thierer @ 11:38 AM | Antitrust & Competition Policy, E-commerce, Innovation, Internet, Net Neutrality

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Wednesday, July 5, 2006

Fun With Numbers

posted by Patrick Ross @ 10:30 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Sunday, July 2, 2006

More on Data Security Breaches

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 3:35 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Wednesday, June 28, 2006

Data Protection Looms: What Price Preemption?

posted by Solveig Singleton @ 11:37 AM | Capitol Hill, E-commerce, Privacy, Privacy

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

More on Saving the Internet

posted by Patrick Ross @ 6:40 PM | Broadband, Capitol Hill, Communications, E-commerce, Internet, Net Neutrality

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Monday, March 13, 2006

"The Eden Illusion"

posted by Patrick Ross @ 9:42 AM | Broadband, Communications, DACA, E-commerce, Internet, Net Neutrality

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Friday, February 24, 2006

FTC Gets Busy on CardSystems

posted by Patrick Ross @ 11:22 AM | E-commerce, Privacy, The FTC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Thursday, January 26, 2006

ChoicePoint Pays the Price

posted by Patrick Ross @ 3:14 PM | Capitol Hill, E-commerce, Privacy, The FTC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Thursday, December 22, 2005

Gaming Price Discrimination

posted by @ 12:44 PM | E-commerce, Economics, IP, Software

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Monday, November 7, 2005

Auctioneering Update -- Breathing Room for North Dakota eBay Sellers

posted by @ 5:16 PM | E-commerce, Internet, State Policy

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Tuesday, November 1, 2005

eBay - Welcome to the World of a Class B Misdemeanor

posted by @ 1:12 PM | E-commerce, Economics, State Policy

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Friday, October 21, 2005

Sen. Coleman's Effort to Stop a "U.N. for the Internet"

posted by Adam Thierer @ 9:47 AM | E-commerce, Free Speech, Internet Governance

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Wednesday, October 12, 2005

WSJ editorial: "The World Wide Web (of Bureaucrats)"

posted by Adam Thierer @ 10:11 AM | E-commerce, Free Speech, Internet Governance

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Friday, August 12, 2005

Dogbert Goes Phishing

posted by Mike Pickford @ 9:34 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Monday, August 1, 2005

The Senate Tries for a Safe Web

posted by Mike Pickford @ 5:22 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Competing Spyware Bills Pass House

posted by Mike Pickford @ 10:53 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Monday, May 16, 2005

Drink Wine and Be Merry

posted by Patrick Ross @ 12:31 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Monday, May 2, 2005

The Spyware Debate

posted by Mike Pickford @ 4:06 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Thursday, April 21, 2005

State Spyware Slippery Slope

posted by Mike Pickford @ 11:10 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Friday, April 15, 2005

Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys

posted by Patrick Ross @ 5:18 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Thursday, April 7, 2005

Internet Jobs: Work from home! Make $$$!

posted by @ 4:20 PM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Wednesday, March 16, 2005

Reining in the Regulators

posted by Randolph May @ 10:34 AM | E-commerce, Events

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Monday, March 7, 2005

More on Phishing

posted by Mike Pickford @ 9:57 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Friday, March 4, 2005

Markets and Phishing

posted by Patrick Ross @ 10:31 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Thursday, March 3, 2005

No Phishing

posted by Mike Pickford @ 11:27 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Thursday, January 6, 2005

Spam in '04

posted by Mike Pickford @ 10:57 AM | E-commerce

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Friday, December 10, 2004

Phishing update

posted by Ray Gifford @ 3:11 PM | E-commerce, Privacy

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

Wednesday, December 8, 2004

Powell Reprise on "'Net Freedom"

posted by @ 7:43 PM | Broadband, E-commerce, The FCC

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly | Email a Comment |Post a Comment (0)

 
Blog Main
RSS Feed   
Recent Posts
  Why the Viacom v. YouTube Summary-Judgment Ruling Will Be Reversed.
Was the Tenenbaum Statutory-Damage Verdict Unconstitutional? Only If College Guys Are Irrationally "Risk-Averse...."
Old Wine in an Old Bottle: LimeWire and Mark Gorton Held Intentional Inducers of Massive Piracy
ACTA: USTR Was Right, and the Histrionics Were Wrong--Again.
Longing for Tax Day Simplicity
PFF Briefing 4/16: Super-Sizing the FTC & What It Means for the Internet, Media & Advertising
Business Insider Attacks James Cameron for "Whining" That Piracy Undermines the Risky Studio Investments That Enabled Cameron's Films To Enrich Millions of Lives
States - Leave No Taxable Opportunity Behind
The Opening Viacom v. YouTube Summary Judgment Briefs: Some First Thoughts
Copyrights in Music Do NOT Exist Only "To Benefit [Matthew Yglesias]"
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  A La Carte
Add category
Advertising & Marketing
Antitrust & Competition Policy
Appleplectics
Books & Book Reviews
Broadband
Cable
Campaign Finance Law
Capitalism
Capitol Hill
China
Commons
Communications
Copyright
Cutting the Video Cord
Cyber-Security
DACA
Digital Americas
Digital Europe
Digital Europe 2006
Digital TV
E-commerce
e-Government & Transparency
Economics
Education
Electricity
Energy
Events
Exaflood
Free Speech
Gambling
General
Generic Rant
Global Innovation
Googlephobia
Googlephobia
Human Capital
Innovation
Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
Internet
Internet Governance
Internet TV
Interoperability
IP
Local Franchising
Mass Media
Media Regulation
Monetary Policy
Municipal Ownership
Net Neutrality
Neutrality
Non-PFF Podcasts
Ongoing Series
Online Safety & Parental Controls
Open Source
PFF
PFF Podcasts
Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
Privacy
Privacy Solutions
Regulation
Search
Security
Software
Space
Spectrum
Sports
State Policy
Supreme Court
Taxes
The FCC
The FTC
The News Frontier
Think Tanks
Trade
Trademark
Universal Service
Video Games & Virtual Worlds
VoIP
What We're Reading
Wireless
Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archive
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.
 










The Progress & Freedom Foundation