Lawsuits against bloggers

November 30, 2005 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

The Media Law Resource Center has compiled this list of legal actions taken against bloggers for libel and other alleged conduct.

InternetCases.com Podcast — November 29, 2005

November 29, 2005 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Panel Discussion of Google Book Search



Download the podcast
Running time: 1 hour
File size: 20.7 MB

This edition of the InternetCases.com Podcast is the audio from a panel discussion held on November 29, 2005 at the John Marshall Law School on the issues surrounding Google Book Search (f/k/a Google Print).

Professor Doris Long moderated the discussion. The first panelist to speak was professor Leslie Reis, who addressed various business issues pertaining to the Google Book Search model. Todd Flaming, a practicing attorney and adjunct professor at John Marshall spoke next on the technology behind the project. I spoke next on the legal issues in the cases filed by the Authors Guild and the American Association of Publishers, focusing mainly on the fair use factors of copyright law. After me was professor David Sorkin, who compared the nature of indexing pages in Google Book Search with the process of indexing regular web pages. The final speaker was Tom Keefe, a reference librarian at the John Marshall Law School library, who gave a librarian’s perspective on how Google Book Search could affect the future of research.

Music courtesy of Blandy under a Creative Commons license.

If you enjoy listening to the InternetCases.com Podcast, please vote for it at Podcast Alley.

Technorati:



Discussion of Google Book Search at John Marshall Law School on November 29

November 23, 2005 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

I will be speaking on a panel addressing the issues in the Google Book Search (f/k/a Google Print) cases at noon on November 29, 2005 at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. If you’re in the neighborhood, be sure to stop by – it should be an interesting discussion. I’m honored to be on the same panel as professors Leslie Reis and David Sorkin of John Marshall, as well as Bill Keefe from the school’s library staff.

Eighth Circuit affirms conviction in Best Buy e-mail extortion case

November 23, 2005 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Defendant Ray was convicted in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota for extortion, and was sentenced to eighteen months in prison for sending e-mail messages to Best Buy threatening to exploit a breach in its computer security. He appealed his conviction to the Eighth Circuit, arguing, among other things, that the evidence presented by the government was insufficient to show that Ray sent the messages.

The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence supported the verdict. In reaching this conclusion, the court noted that Ray had admitted using his computer to log onto the Internet several times a day, and that three of the e-mail messages sent to Best Buy were traced to the IP address he was using at the very time the extortion messages were sent. Other evidence supported the conclusion that Ray was responsible for the messages.

One of Ray’s further arguments was that the prosecutor improperly argued criminal propensity in her closing argument by pointing out that Ray acquired domain names to which he had no legitimate interest after being notified that such conduct was improper. Without determining whether the prosecutor erred in making this argument, the court concluded that such a comment “was not so offensive that it deprived Ray of a fair trial.”

U.S. v. Ray, — F.3d —, 2005 WL 3110595 (8th Cir., Nov. 22, 2005).

State consumer fraud action unavailable to nonresident website user

November 22, 2005 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Plaintiff Shaw, a U.S. citizen but resident of London, used Hyatt International Corporation’s website to make a reservation for three nights in the Ararat Park Hyatt in Moscow, Russia. On the website, Hyatt quoted Shaw a rate of $502 USD per night. When checking out of the hotel, however, Shaw was charged some 15% more than the quoted price, allegedly because of an inflated exchange rate Hyatt used to convert between dollars and rubles.

Shaw filed suit against Hyatt in federal court in Chicago, alleging two causes of action under Illinois law: (1) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (“ICFA”), and (2) common law unjust enrichment. Hyatt moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint.

In dismissing Shaw’s ICFA claim, the court applied the test set forth in the recent Illinois Supreme Court decision of Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 835 N.E.2d 801 (Ill., 2005) which held that a nonresident plaintiff may sue under the ICFA only if the fraudulent transaction occurred “primarily and substantially” within Illinois. In the present case, the court found that:

[T]he overwhelming majority of the circumstances relating to the transaction between Plaintiff and Hyatt concern events outside of Illinois. Even assuming, as the Court must for purposes of a motion to dismiss, that Hyatt’s currency inflation scheme originated in its principal place of business in Illinois, Avery makes clear that this fact alone does not warrant application of the ICFA.

The court went on to dismiss Shaw’s unjust enrichment claim, because the “Terms and Conditions” displayed on the Hyatt website at the time of the reservation were an express agreement between Shaw and Hyatt. Because the specific transaction giving rise to the dispute was governed by an express agreement, the extra-contractual claim for unjust enrichment was unavailable.

Shaw v. Hyatt International Corp. 2005 WL 3088438 (N.D.Ill., November 15, 2005).

InternetCases.com Podcast — November 20, 2005

November 20, 2005 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Cindy Cohn Part II

This edition of the InternetCases.com Podcast is Part 2 of the audio from a talk given by Cindy Cohn, the legal director and general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Ms. Cohn spoke to a meeting of the Internet Law Committee of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (“IPLAC”) on November 4, 2005. Ms. Cohn discussed issues relating to file sharing — in particular, the Grokster decision, as well as actions taken by the entertainment industry against individual file-sharers.

This Part 2 is the question and answer sesssion from the talk.



Download the podcast
Running time: 39:30
File size: 13.5 MB

Music courtesy of Blandy under a Creative Commons license.

If you enjoy listening to the InternetCases.com Podcast, please vote for it at Podcast Alley.

InternetCases.com Podcast — November 9, 2005

November 9, 2005 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

Cindy Cohn Part I

This “special edition” of the InternetCases.com Podcast is the audio from a talk given by Cindy Cohn, the legal director and general counsel for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Ms. Cohn spoke to a meeting of the Internet Law Committee of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (“IPLAC”) on November 4, 2005. Ms. Cohn discussed issues relating to file sharing — in particular, the Grokster decision, as well as actions taken by the entertainment industry against individual file-sharers.

The talk is being presented here at InternetCases.com in two parts. This first part is Ms. Cohn’s main talk. The question and answer sesssion (edited for brevity and understandability) will be posted as Part 2 at a later date.

This was a lunchtime meeting, so please excuse the sound in the backgroud of soda cans opening, and other general sounds such as papers rattling, etc.



Download the podcast
Running time: 34:08
File size: 11.7 MB

Music courtesy of Blandy under a Creative Commons license.

If you enjoy listening to the InternetCases.com Podcast, please vote for it at Podcast Alley.

Federal court permits service of process on Australian defendants by e-mail

November 8, 2005 | by Evan Brown (@internetcases) | Comments Off 

A recent case from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia addresses the novel question of when a plaintiff can obtain service of process over a defendant in another country by e-mail.

Plaintiff Williams sued numerous defendants whom she alleged conspired to defame her. Three of the defendants were residents of Australia, and Williams’s efforts of obtaining service by traditional means were unsuccessful. She petitioned the court to allow her to obtain service by alternate means, including e-mail, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(f)(3). Because Williams had demonstrated her good faith efforts to serve the Australian defendants by traditional means, and because her proposed efforts of service through e-mail were reasonable, the court granted the motion.

The court went through a two-step process to determine that service of process by e-mail would be proper. First, it concluded that given the “particularities and necessities” presented from the near impossibility of serving the evasive defendants, alternate means of service were warranted. The court then “examined the contours” of Rule 4(f)(3) to determine which alternate means would satisfy due process concerns.

Rule 4(f)(3) provides three general means for effecting service of process on defendants outside the United States. Paraphrased, these means are:

  • Any internationally agreed means, such as the Hague Convention
  • Any manner authorized by the laws of the foreign country
  • Any means not prohibited by international agreement and directed by the court

Adopting the standard first applied in the Ninth Circuit decision of Rio Properties, Inc. v. Rio International Interlink, 284 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002), the court held that “Rule 4(f) does not denote any hierarchy or preference of one method of service over another.” Because Australia and the U.S. have no agreement between them regarding service of process, the court was free to consider any means for service reasonably calculated to alert the defendants of the action.

Given that the defendants were “sophisticated participants in e-commerce,” and that plaintiff had established the reliability of e-mail addresses used by the defendants, alternate service by e-mail was permissible. The reliability of service by e-mail was enhanced by Williams’s proposal to use an online service that provided encryption and digital confirmation of delivery.

Williams v. Advertising Sex LLC et al., — F.R.D. —, 2005 WL 2837574 (October 25, 2005).