The next day, Sullivan was called into the high school principal’s office regarding the incident.  After noting that he needed to do “damage control,” the principal asked Sullivan to write a letter of apology to Governor Brownback and his staff.  He set Monday as the due date for the letter.

With the support of many peers and her parents, Sullivan decided that she would not write an apology letter – and the school district agreed with her.

Sullivan’s predicament is one that is gaining serious publicity, with articles such as “Think Before You Tweet” circulating the corporate boardrooms, and now school systems, “Tweeting has largely replaced “talking” in many forms…But in this jump into social media, no one has stopped to think:  this is social media, but it’s still media. How can this effect me, my business, or my job?“

Though Sullivan walked out of this situation with public and administrative support, it does the beg the question: when does (or can) Tweeting go too far?

- Scott Ellison, The BroadStreet Times 

The legislation has been opposed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Yahoo!, eBay, American Express, Google, Reporters Without Borders, and Human Rights Watch to name a few.  Media-sharing services such as Vimeo and Flickr, along with crowd favorite e-commerce communities such as Etsy could be the types of sites at risk under the Stop Online Piracy Act.  Fight for the Future published a 3-minute infographic video explaining the basics of the bills and their impact on everyday activities of online interactions.

The bills are designed to provide the government and copyright holders the power to block access to “rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods,” especially those registered outside the United States.  If passed, PIPA and SOPA would allow the government to prevent public access to websites with “no significant use” other than copyright infringement, or enabling such infringement.  It would also make unauthorized media streaming a felony and hold web publishers and hosting services responsible for curbing users from acts involving copyright-infringement.

All in all – it would make most everyday media usage a crime, hold people accountable even if they did not know it was going on, and it would focus energies away from real issues (such as lack of healthcare and a dying economy).  SOPA would also get rid of the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which grants Web sites immunity from prosecution as long as they act in good faith to take down infringing content upon notice.

Under the bill, the Justice Department would be allowed to obtain court orders demanding that American ISPs prevent users from visiting blacklisted websites. ISPs receiving such orders would have to alter records in the net’s system for looking up website names, known as DNS.  The House bill would also enable the Justice Department to order sites like Google to remove allegedly “rogue” sites from search results.  As with many other bills, the determination of what is “rogue” would be out of the hands of the general public, the companies hosting the content, and anyone with direct understanding of the content and its use.  It would give unprecedented censorship power to the US government.

The potential censorship issues were met with strong arguments that some measure of law is needed to police the piracy and counterfeiting problems rampant on the Internet.

“Doing nothing is not an option,” Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina noted.  “Not only are online piracy and counterfeiting drains on our economy, they expose consumers to fraud, identity theft, confusion and to harm.”

His sentiments were echoed by John Clark, the security chief for Pfizer, who testified about counterfeit drug sales on the internet.  “I see counterfeited medicines as attempted murder,” said Clark.

Proponents of the bill also argue that if nothing is done, the US Copyright system will be rendered useless. However, it is unclear how the copyright system would fail when companies like iTunes, Pandora, Spotify, Grooveshark and Amazon are the mostly commonly used sources for legitimate music downloads.

The issues comes down to this:  how many rights are we willing to give up here?  Is it worth it? And does Congress understand the numerous options available on the Internet?  After all, computer savvy users will always find a workaround; but the people who would be held accountable would be minor offenders, and under this bill, even accidental offenders.

With strong arguments on both sides of the bills, the answer remains unclear.

- Sheheryar T. Sardar, Esq., Originally published in The BroadStreet Times

The legislation has been opposed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), Yahoo!, eBay, American Express, Google, Reporters Without Borders, and Human Rights Watch to name a few.  Media-sharing services such as Vimeo and Flickr, along with crowd favorite e-commerce communities such as Etsy could be the types of sites at risk under the Stop Online Piracy Act.  Fight for the Future published a 3-minute infographic video explaining the basics of the bills and their impact on everyday activities of online interactions.

The bills are designed to provide the government and copyright holders the power to block access to “rogue websites dedicated to infringing or counterfeit goods,” especially those registered outside the United States.  If passed, PIPA and SOPA would allow the government to prevent public access to websites with “no significant use” other than copyright infringement, or enabling such infringement.  It would also make unauthorized media streaming a felony and hold web publishers and hosting services responsible for curbing users from acts involving copyright-infringement.

All in all – it would make most everyday media usage a crime, hold people accountable even if they did not know it was going on, and it would focus energies away from real issues (such as lack of healthcare and a dying economy).  SOPA would also get rid of the safe harbor provisions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, which grants Web sites immunity from prosecution as long as they act in good faith to take down infringing content upon notice.

Under the bill, the Justice Department would be allowed to obtain court orders demanding that American ISPs prevent users from visiting blacklisted websites. ISPs receiving such orders would have to alter records in the net’s system for looking up website names, known as DNS.  The House bill would also enable the Justice Department to order sites like Google to remove allegedly “rogue” sites from search results.  As with many other bills, the determination of what is “rogue” would be out of the hands of the general public, the companies hosting the content, and anyone with direct understanding of the content and its use.  It would give unprecedented censorship power to the US government.

The potential censorship issues were met with strong arguments that some measure of law is needed to police the piracy and counterfeiting problems rampant on the Internet.

“Doing nothing is not an option,” Rep. Mel Watt of North Carolina noted.  “Not only are online piracy and counterfeiting drains on our economy, they expose consumers to fraud, identity theft, confusion and to harm.”

His sentiments were echoed by John Clark, the security chief for Pfizer, who testified about counterfeit drug sales on the internet.  “I see counterfeited medicines as attempted murder,” said Clark.

Proponents of the bill also argue that if nothing is done, the US Copyright system will be rendered useless. However, it is unclear how the copyright system would fail when companies like iTunes, Pandora, Spotify, Grooveshark and Amazon are the mostly commonly used sources for legitimate music downloads.

The issues comes down to this:  how many rights are we willing to give up here?  Is it worth it? And does Congress understand the numerous options available on the Internet?  After all, computer savvy users will always find a workaround; but the people who would be held accountable would be minor offenders, and under this bill, even accidental offenders.

With strong arguments on both sides of the bills, the answer remains unclear.

- Sheheryar T. Sardar, Esq., Sardar Law Firm LLC*

For more information on contract law or digital media law, contact: Sardar Law Firm at sardar@sardarlawfirm.com.

First published in The BroadStreet Times

<!– Advertisement –>

Article source: http://socialmedialegal.wordpress.com/2011/12/02/stop-piracy-or-innovation/

Before proceeding with securing international rights, a company should assess whether filing for protection is appropriate. Circumstances for determining what type of IP protection is best for a certain company vary, so seeking legal counsel is advisable. Several general questions can help guide the decision, such as whether or not you will be selling, distributing or outsourcing your product abroad, and what the likelihood if of your product being copied overseas. International protection is not inexpensive, and affordability should be a deciding factor. While every care and consideration should be taken in the decision, businesses should keep in mind that since certain actions can bar certain types of protection, it’s in a business’s best interest to consider IP protection as early as possible.

Once you have decided to protect your IP abroad, legal counsel can help you develop an overall protection strategy, conduct due diligence of potential foreign partners, record your U.S.-registered trademarks and copyrights with Customs and Border Protection, and secure and register trademarks and copyrights in the appropriate foreign markets.

As trademarks are territorial and a U.S. trademark does not grant protection in other countries, trademarks must be filed in each country where protection is sought. If a business is seeking trademark protection in numerous countries, it may be expedient to file an application under the Madrid Protocol, which offers trademark protection in many countries, including those beyond the European Union (e.g. Turkey, Iran). Another option for businesses seeking protection in several countries is a CTM, which must be applied for and provides protection for a trademark in all member countries of the European Union.

Although there is no such thing as an “international copyright” that will protect a work worldwide, most countries offer protection to foreign works under international copyright treaties and conventions. In the case that the work can’t be brought under an international treaty, a country may still offer protection under its national laws. Examples of international copyright treaties and conventions include the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Work, the Universal Copyright Convention, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty; the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty, and the Agreement on Trade­Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Since there are still some countries that offer little or no copyright protection to any foreign works, it may be advisable to consult www.copyright.gov for a list of policies specific to each country.

It is important to keep in mind that international protection and U.S. protection can differ in several ways with regards to IP. For example, the U.S. offers arguably less protection of an author’s moral rights than other countries. On the other hand, the fair use defense to copyright infringement under §107 of U.S. copyright law is significantly broader than international fair use exemptions, which have a tendency to be more specific in nature. Since policies can vary between countries, it is always advisable to conduct due diligence for the most up-to-date legal and procedural issues surrounding international protection. Failing to do so may result in product or name infringement and dilution in a jurisdiction where you have no judicial or legal remedies, possibly resulting in devastating economic consequences.

by, Sheheryar Sardar, Esq., Sardar Law Firm LLC*

For more information on contract law, contact: Sardar Law Firm atsardar@sardarlawfirm.com.

Follow Sardar Law Firm on Twitter: @sardarlawfirm