DOCSLIB.ORG

Linking Cases Worldwide – a Comprehensive Overview

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Linking Cases Worldwide – a Comprehensive Overview Linking Cases Worldwide – A Comprehensive Overview By Stephan Ott Version 2.1. (October 2004) Inhaltsverzeichnis Links to Illegal Material / Liability ........................................................................................ 5 Intellectual Reserve Inc. v. Tanners ................................................................................... 5 Bernstein v. J.C Penney ..................................................................................................... 6 Nottinghamshire County Council v. Journalists.................................................................. 7 IFPI Schweden v. Tommy Olssen ...................................................................................... 9 Direct links into Peer-2-Peer networks............................................................................... 9 Austropersonal.com / Jobmonitor.com............................................................................. 10 Sir Elton John v. Countess Joulebine................................................................................ 10 Warez.at .......................................................................................................................... 11 Google v. Scientology...................................................................................................... 11 Deutsche Bahn v. AltaVista, Google, Yahoo.................................................................... 12 Deutsche Bahn v. XS4ALL.............................................................................................. 14 Deutsche Bahn v. Indymedia.nl........................................................................................ 14 Lucasfilm v. Aldera.net / NaboOnline.............................................................................. 16 Cyber Patrol..................................................................................................................... 16 MP3Board v. RIAA......................................................................................................... 17 Scientology v. Spaink ...................................................................................................... 19 Microsoft v. Slashdot....................................................................................................... 21 IFPI v. Fast Search / Lycos .............................................................................................. 21 Suhrkamp v. Kantel ......................................................................................................... 22 UCSD v. Student Group................................................................................................... 23 Google v. Illegal Content ................................................................................................. 24 Google and Kazaa Lite Links........................................................................................... 25 Recommendations on the responsibilities for linking to illicit content .............................. 26 IFPI China v. MyWeb Inc.com ........................................................................................ 26 CDU and the Ketchup Song............................................................................................. 27 Fahrenheit 9/11................................................................................................................ 28 Schöner Wetten ............................................................................................................... 28 Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc. ........................................................................ 30 Mark Pollard v. Miramax Film......................................................................................... 33 Donkeymania................................................................................................................... 33 ShareReactor ................................................................................................................... 34 DeCSS – Cases: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes and DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Andrew Bunner................................................................................. 35 Criminal Law....................................................................................................................... 55 Burkhard Schröder........................................................................................................... 55 Stricker............................................................................................................................ 55 LGCM ............................................................................................................................. 57 Rediff’s search engine...................................................................................................... 57 Osaka District Court: FLMask ......................................................................................... 57 Trademark Law ................................................................................................................... 59 Explorer - Cases............................................................................................................... 59 Nissan Motor Co., Ltd. v. Nissan Computer Corp. ........................................................... 64 Digital Equipment Corp. v. Alta Vista Corp..................................................................... 64 PaineWebber Inc. v. Fortuny............................................................................................ 64 Jeri-Jo Knitwear, Inc. v. Club Italia, Inc........................................................................... 65 Ford Motor Company v. 2600 Enterprises........................................................................ 65 Bihari v. Gross................................................................................................................. 67 Toronto.com v. Sinclair ................................................................................................. 68 Imax Corporation v. Showmax, Inc.................................................................................. 68 People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals v. Doughney............................................... 69 OBH, Inc. v. Spotlight Magazine, Inc. ............................................................................. 70 Jews for Jesus v. Brodsky ................................................................................................ 71 Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber ...................................................................... 72 Morrison & Foerster LLP v. Wick ................................................................................... 72 Deep Links/ Search Engines ................................................................................................ 74 Paperboy.......................................................................................................................... 74 Shetland Times v. Shetland News .................................................................................... 76 PCM v. Kranten.com ....................................................................................................... 77 BMG Australia Ltd. v. S 11 ............................................................................................. 78 Ticketmaster v. Tickets.com ............................................................................................ 78 Ticketmaster v. Microsoft ................................................................................................ 80 Stepstone v. Ofir .............................................................................................................. 82 Barkingdogs.org .............................................................................................................. 82 Runnersworld.com v. LetsRun.com ................................................................................. 84 NVM v. De Telegraaf ...................................................................................................... 85 Software 2000 v. Electronic Arts ..................................................................................... 85 Pacific Internet Ltd. v. Catcha.com Pte Ltd. ..................................................................... 86 EBay v. AuctionWatch .................................................................................................... 86 Newsbooster.................................................................................................................... 88 Homestore v. Bargain Network........................................................................................ 91 Newsclub......................................................................................................................... 92 Movie-List....................................................................................................................... 93 Finn Eiendom AS and Finn.no v. Notar AS...................................................................... 94 Linking Policies................................................................................................................... 95 Better Business Bureau .................................................................................................... 95 NPR................................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress
    Order Code RL32114 Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress Updated January 29, 2008 Clay Wilson Specialist in Technology and National Security Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division Botnets, Cybercrime, and Cyberterrorism: Vulnerabilities and Policy Issues for Congress Summary Cybercrime is becoming more organized and established as a transnational business. High technology online skills are now available for rent to a variety of customers, possibly including nation states, or individuals and groups that could secretly represent terrorist groups. The increased use of automated attack tools by cybercriminals has overwhelmed some current methodologies used for tracking Internet cyberattacks, and vulnerabilities of the U.S. critical infrastructure, which are acknowledged openly in publications, could possibly attract cyberattacks to extort money, or damage the U.S. economy to affect national security. In April and May 2007, NATO and the United States sent computer security experts to Estonia to help that nation recover from cyberattacks directed against government computer systems, and to analyze the methods used and determine the source of the attacks.1 Some security experts suspect that political protestors may have rented the services of cybercriminals, possibly a large network of infected PCs, called a “botnet,” to help disrupt the computer systems of the Estonian government. DOD officials have also indicated that similar cyberattacks from individuals and countries targeting economic,
    [Show full text]
  • What Every Citizen Should Know About DRM, A.K.A. “Digital Rights Management”
    What Every Citizen Should Know About DRM, a.k.a. “Digital Rights Management” By Mike Godwin Senior Technology Counsel Public Knowledge PUBLIC KNOWLEDGE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION What Every Citizen Should Know About DRM, a.k.a. “Digital Rights Management” By Mike Godwin Senior Technology Counsel Public Knowledge NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION Washington, DC Acknowledgements This “DRM primer” would not have come about without the author’s having worked with an informal “Risks of Copy Protection” expert group that includes Ed Felten, Matt Blaze, Phil Karn, Steve Bellovin, Bruce Schneier, Alan Davidson, John Morris, Hal Abelson, and Bill Cheswick. Two members of the group — Ed Felten and Matt Blaze — deserve special thanks for framing a number of copy-protection technology issues with such clarity that I have to some extent reproduced that clarity here. Phil Karn similarly deserves special thanks for his discussion of the extent to which peer-to-peer file-sharing is a feature of the Inter- net’s fundamental design. Andy Moss and Aaron Burstein each made a wide range of helpful comments and observations on earlier drafts of this primer. I’m particularly grateful to my boss, Gigi Sohn, for giving me the opportunity to explore the landscape of digital rights management and to develop further some of my ideas about the directions in which DRM may take us. I’m also thankful for the support and feedback of my other fellow staff members at Public Knowledge — Sarah Brown, Alex Curtis, Ann Dev- ille, and Nathan Mitchler. I consider myself fortunate to be backed by such a knowledgeable and resourceful team; each of my colleagues contributed in many ways to the development of this project, and all of them read this paper in various stages of development and offered helpful corrections and suggestions.
    [Show full text]
  • How China Will Use Cyber Warfare to Leapfrog in Military Competitiveness Jason Fritz
    Culture Mandala: The Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies The Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies Volume 8 | Issue 1 Article 2 10-1-2008 How China will use cyber warfare to leapfrog in military competitiveness Jason Fritz Follow this and additional works at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cm Recommended Citation Fritz, Jason (2008) "How China will use cyber warfare to leapfrog in military competitiveness," Culture Mandala: The Bulletin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies: Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/cm/vol8/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you by the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies at ePublications@bond. It has been accepted for inclusion in Culture Mandala: The ulB letin of the Centre for East-West Cultural and Economic Studies by an authorized administrator of ePublications@bond. For more information, please contact Bond University's Repository Coordinator. How China will use cyber warfare to leapfrog in military competitiveness Abstract Extract: The eP ople’s Republic of China (PRC) may be a global power economically but its military lacks force projection beyond the Asia Pacific er gion. Its traditional military hardware is one to three generations behind the US and Russia. In light of these deficiencies it is probable that cyber warfare will provide China with an asymmetric advantage to deter aggression from stronger military powers as they catch up in traditional military capabilities. Cyber warfare would also allow China to leapfrog by means of technology transfer and exploiting adversary weaknesses.
    [Show full text]
  • Scientology: CRIMINAL TIME TRACK ISSUE I by Mike Mcclaughry 1999
    Scientology: CRIMINAL TIME TRACK ISSUE I by Mike McClaughry 1999 The following is a Time Track that I put together for myself and some friends at the time, in 1999. I originally used the pseudonym “Theta” at the request of Greg Barnes until he was ready to “go public” with his defection from Scientology. I also used the pseudonym “Theta 8-8008” around this same time period. Bernd Luebeck, Ex-Guardian’s Office Intelligence and then Ron’s Org staff ran the website www.freezone.org. In 1999, just after my time track was released privately, Bernd used it on his website as-is. He later expanded on my original time track with items of interest to himself. Prior to my doing this time track, Bernd, (nor anyone else involved with Scientology on the internet), had ever thought of the idea to do things this way in relation to Scientology. Mike McClaughry BEGIN An open letter to all Scientologists: Greetings and by way of introduction, I am a Class 8, OT 8, who has been in the Church for many decades and I am in good standing with the Church. I am a lover of LRH’s technology and that is my motivation in writing you and in doing what I am now doing. It came to my attention, sometime in the not too distant past, that the current top management of the Church, particularly David Miscavige, is off source. One of the ways he is off-source is that he has made the same mistake as the old Guardian’s Office staff made, engaging in criminal activities to solve problems.
    [Show full text]
  • Zerohack Zer0pwn Youranonnews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men
    Zerohack Zer0Pwn YourAnonNews Yevgeniy Anikin Yes Men YamaTough Xtreme x-Leader xenu xen0nymous www.oem.com.mx www.nytimes.com/pages/world/asia/index.html www.informador.com.mx www.futuregov.asia www.cronica.com.mx www.asiapacificsecuritymagazine.com Worm Wolfy Withdrawal* WillyFoReal Wikileaks IRC 88.80.16.13/9999 IRC Channel WikiLeaks WiiSpellWhy whitekidney Wells Fargo weed WallRoad w0rmware Vulnerability Vladislav Khorokhorin Visa Inc. Virus Virgin Islands "Viewpointe Archive Services, LLC" Versability Verizon Venezuela Vegas Vatican City USB US Trust US Bankcorp Uruguay Uran0n unusedcrayon United Kingdom UnicormCr3w unfittoprint unelected.org UndisclosedAnon Ukraine UGNazi ua_musti_1905 U.S. Bankcorp TYLER Turkey trosec113 Trojan Horse Trojan Trivette TriCk Tribalzer0 Transnistria transaction Traitor traffic court Tradecraft Trade Secrets "Total System Services, Inc." Topiary Top Secret Tom Stracener TibitXimer Thumb Drive Thomson Reuters TheWikiBoat thepeoplescause the_infecti0n The Unknowns The UnderTaker The Syrian electronic army The Jokerhack Thailand ThaCosmo th3j35t3r testeux1 TEST Telecomix TehWongZ Teddy Bigglesworth TeaMp0isoN TeamHav0k Team Ghost Shell Team Digi7al tdl4 taxes TARP tango down Tampa Tammy Shapiro Taiwan Tabu T0x1c t0wN T.A.R.P. Syrian Electronic Army syndiv Symantec Corporation Switzerland Swingers Club SWIFT Sweden Swan SwaggSec Swagg Security "SunGard Data Systems, Inc." Stuxnet Stringer Streamroller Stole* Sterlok SteelAnne st0rm SQLi Spyware Spying Spydevilz Spy Camera Sposed Spook Spoofing Splendide
    [Show full text]
  • Forbidden Feeds: Government Controls on Social Media in China
    FORBIDDEN FEEDS Government Controls on Social Media in China 1 FORBIDDEN FEEDS Government Controls on Social Media in China March 13, 2018 © 2018 PEN America. All rights reserved. PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and hu- man rights to protect open expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. Founded in 1922, PEN America is the largest of more than 100 centers of PEN International. Our strength is in our membership—a nationwide community of more than 7,000 novelists, journalists, poets, es- sayists, playwrights, editors, publishers, translators, agents, and other writing professionals. For more information, visit pen.org. Cover Illustration: Badiucao CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 INTRODUCTION : AN UNFULFILLED PROMISE 7 OUTLINE AND METHODOLOGY 10 KEY FINDINGS 11 SECTION I : AN OVERVIEW OF THE SYSTEM OF SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP 12 The Prevalence of Social Media Usage in China 12 Digital Rights—Including the Right to Free Expression—Under International Law 14 China’s Control of Online Expression: A Historical Perspective 15 State Control over Social Media: Policy 17 State Control over Social Media: Recent Laws and Regulations 18 SECTION II: SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP IN PRACTICE 24 A Typology of Censored Topics 24 The Corporate Responsibility to Censor its Users 29 The Mechanics of Censorship 32 Tibet and
    [Show full text]
  • BEYOND NAPSTER: Copyright, Fair Use, Intellectual Property Collide in Cyberspace E-Mal for Life!
    Stanf- yer BEYOND NAPSTER: Copyright, Fair Use, Intellectual Property Collide in Cyberspace e-mal for life! www.stanfordalumni.org ired ofhaving to send your new e­ Tmail address to family and friends every time you change your provider? Avoid the hassle by signing up today for a permanent Stanford Alumni Association (SAA) e-mail account Best of all, it~ FREE! Here's what you'll get: It's as easy as 1-2-3. • An address that's easy to remember Log on to www.stanfirdalumni.org-useyour OStanford ill number (above your name on [email protected] the Stanfird Lawyer mailing label) • 24/7 access to your mail on the C1 After you've signed up, you might want to Web-great when you're traveling ~ update your address in the SAA online • Automatic forwarding to your Alumni Directory to let your friends know where you are. Just click on "Update Your every-day account-keep current Profile." This directory is a great resource. with classmates and friends ~ Contact your Law School friends Ii:.I and classmates frequently ... They'll be glad and so will you. www.stanfordalumni.org SUMMER 2001 / ISSUE 60 Contents Features ,------------------------------_e 14 BEYOND NAPSTER By Doug Fine Copyright, Fair Use, and Intellectual Property Collide in Cyberspace P2P networking technology has revolutionized file swapping, but now new business models are emerging to beat down the legal challenges faced by upstarts like PROFESSOR Napster. Here's what the experts LAWRENCE LESSIG ----1------111IIII--------- see in our digital future. I 20 ELECTION REVIEW By Mel Taylor Stanford Law School was very well represented during Election 2000.
    [Show full text]
  • Linking Cases Worldwide – a Comprehensive Overview By
    Linking Cases Worldwide – A Comprehensive Overview By Stephan Ott Version 1.1. (August 2003) 2 Inhaltsverzeichnis Links to Illegal Material / Liability ........................................................................................ 5 DeCSS – Cases: Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes and DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. v. Andrew Bunner................................................................................... 5 Intellectual Reserve Inc. v. Tanners ................................................................................. 23 Bernstein v. J.C Penney ................................................................................................... 25 IFPI Schweden v. Tommy Olssen .................................................................................... 27 Direct links into Peer-2-Peer networks............................................................................. 28 Austropersonal.com / Jobmonitor.com............................................................................. 29 Sir Elton John v. Countess Joulebine................................................................................ 29 Warez.at .......................................................................................................................... 29 Google v. Scientology...................................................................................................... 30 Deutsche Bahn v. AltaVista, Google, Yahoo.................................................................... 31 Deutsche Bahn v. XS4ALL.............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Liberties and Security in Cyberspace
    Hoover Press : Cyber DP5 HPCYBE0500 06-11-:1 11:53:04 rev1 page 183 CHAPTER 5 Civil Liberties and Security in Cyberspace Ekaterina A. Drozdova Measures to protect information systems against cyber attacks are receiving increasing attention as the threat of attacks grows and the nature of that threat is better understood. Among these measures are sophisticated technologies for monitoring computer networks and us- ers, detecting intrusion, identifying and tracing intruders, and preserv- ing and analyzing evidence, all discussed in the previous chapter. What legal standards should govern the use of these measures? What non- technical constraints are likely to be placed, or ought to be placed, on them? What importance should be assigned to these constraints in designing and implementing technologically robust solutions, as well as international agreements to facilitate law enforcement? Specific answers to these questions will ultimately be determined Hoover Press : Cyber DP5 HPCYBE0500 06-11-:1 11:53:04 rev1 page 184 184 Ekaterina A. Drozdova by evaluating the specific measures or agreements proposed. But cer- tain legal principles are broadly applicable, including the right to pri- vacy, the protections against self-incrimination and unwarranted searches and seizures, and the right to due process of law. These civil liberties are supported in international law and guaranteed in varying forms by the national laws and institutions of many countries. An international regime against cyber crime and terrorism must operate within the constraints of these principles, as defined by the legal frame- works of its States Parties. There is often a tension between protecting civil liberties and en- forcing laws to maintain public safety and order.
    [Show full text]
  • Exhibit N.DOC
    Page 1 1 of 1 DOCUMENT Copyright 2010 The Washington Post All Rights Reserved The Washington Post April 21, 2010 Wednesday Suburban Edition SECTION: A-SECTION; Pg. A15 DISTRIBUTION: Maryland LENGTH: 692 words HEADLINE: Google hackers duped company personnel to penetrate networks; Cyberattacks growing more sophisticated, experts say BYLINE: Ellen Nakashima BODY: The hackers who penetrated the computer networks of Google and more than 30 other large companies used an in- creasingly common means of attack: duping system administrators and other executives who have access to passwords, intellectual property and other information, according to cybersecurity experts familiar with the cases. "Once you gain access to the directory of user names and passwords, in minutes you can take over a network," said George Kurtz, worldwide chief technology officer for McAfee, a Silicon Valley computer security firm that has been working with more than half a dozen of the targeted companies. Kurtz and others said hackers are mounting ever more sophisticated and effective attacks that often begin with a ruse familiar to many computer users -- a seemingly innocuous link or attachment that admits malicious software. The attacks were publicized in January when Google, one of the world's most advanced tech firms, announced that intruders had penetrated its network and compromised valuable intellectual property. Google asserted that the attacks originated in China; Chinese officials say they are investigating. The New York Times reported on its Web site Monday that the Google theft included source code for a password system that controls access to almost all of the company's Web services. But the cyber-espionage campaign went far beyond Google, targeting companies with apparently strong intrusion- detection systems, including Adobe, Northrop Grumman and Yahoo, industry sources said.
    [Show full text]
  • Human Rights in the Digital
    Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 09:13 03 November 2016 HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 09:13 03 November 2016 Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 09:13 03 November 2016 HUMAN RIGHTS IN THE DIGITAL AGE Edited by Mathias Klang and Andrew Murray Downloaded by [University of Liverpool] at 09:13 03 November 2016 First published in Great Britain 2005 by The GlassHouse Press, The Glass House, Wharton Street, London WC1X 9PX, United Kingdom Telephone: + 44 (0)20 7278 8000 Facsimile: + 44 (0)20 7278 8080 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com Published in the United States by Cavendish Publishing c/o International Specialized Book Services, 5824 NE Hassalo Street, Portland, Oregon 97213-3644, USA Published in Australia by The GlassHouse Press, 45 Beach Street, Coogee, NSW 2034, Australia Telephone: + 61 (2)9664 0909 Facsimile: +61 (2)9664 5420 Email: [email protected] Website: www.cavendishpublishing.com.au © Cavendish Publishing Ltd 2005 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of Cavendish Publishing Limited, or as expressly permitted by law, or under the terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Cavendish Publishing Limited, at the address above. You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose the same condition on any acquirer.
    [Show full text]
  • Jurisdictional Analysis Formatted
    Jurisdictional Analysis Comparative Study Of Intermediary Liability Regimes Chile, Canada, India, South Korea, UK and USA in support of the Manila Principles On Intermediary Liability Version 1.0, 1 July 2015 Authors and Affiliations Jyoti Panday (Programme Officer) Centre for Internet and Society, India J. Carlos Lara (Research and Policy Manager) Derechos Digitales, Chile Kyun S Park (Professor) Korea University Law School; (Director) Open Net, Korea Kelly Kim (General Counsel) Open Net, Korea Acknowledgements The author would like to the inputs and feedback of Rishabh Dara, Jeremy Malcolm, Gabrielle Guillemin, Shradha Nigam, Elonnai Hickok, Pranesh Prakash and Sunil Abraham. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author declares no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this analysis. Funding Research, authorship, and/or publication of this article and the development of the Principles has been generously funded by a grant from MacArthur Foundation. Permissions The author has sought permission from the Steering Committee developing the Manila Principles and members who have contributed to this analysis. Corresponding Author Jyoti Panday, Centre for Internet and Society Top Floor, G-15 Hauz Khas New Delhi 110016 INDIA Email: [email protected] jURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS - MANILAPRINCIPLES.ORG 1 Abstract Governments around the world undertake speech regulation through the imposition of liability on intermediaries for third-party content, and often impose related obligations of proactive monitoring, exercising due diligence, and other such requirements. This study highlights the trends and crucial differences in existing liability regimes across Chile, Canada, India, South Korea, UK and USA. This analysis has been undertaken by the steering committee developing the Manila Principles and is aimed at supporting the development of the Manila Principles - a global civil society initiative.
    [Show full text]