- EU - EP Report on collecting societies for authors' rights +/-
(Europarl) Report on a Community framework for collecting societies for authors’ rights A5-0478/2003. Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market Rapporteur: Raina A. Mercedes Echerer
- NL - Microsoft wins Lindows fight in the Netherlands +/-
(The Register) Rsellers of the Linux distribution Lindows in the Netherlands were ordered to stop selling the product. Amsterdam judge Rullmann agreed with Microsoft that in many ways Lindows is 'profiting from the success of Windows' by infringing Microsoft trademarks.
- US - Diebold v. the Bloggers +/-
(Berkman Briefings) The first Berkman Briefing about a case that throws up interesting issues about the tension between copyight and free speech, particulalry since the company seeking to revent publication of source code and embarrassing internal memoranda supplies machinery for electronic voting for 37 states in the US.
- US - Porn publisher sues credit card companies +/-
(Reuters) A California publisher of a pornographic magazine and website has sued Visa, MasterCard and other financial institutions in a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, saying they facilitated the illegal sale of pirated sex images flooding the Internet. Perfect 10 based the case on claims other websites were stealing their sexual imagery to make money, often through duplicitous advertising.
- US - The Tyranny of Copyright? +/-
(New York Times) by Robert S. Boynton. The 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (D.M.C.A.), designed to protect copyrighted material on the Web, the act makes it possible for an Internet service provider to be liable for the material posted by its users - an extraordinary burden that providers of phone service, by contrast, do not share. Under the law, if an aggrieved party threatens to sue an Internet service provider over the content of a subscriber's Web site, the provider can avoid liability simply by removing the offending material. Since the mere threat of a lawsuit is usually enough to scare most providers into submission, the law effectively gives private parties veto power over much of the information published online.