Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Paralegal Power Break: Internet Law

225 views

Published on

The Internet has changed our lives and our laws. Technology has put the world at our fingertips and now allows even the smallest business to reach customers around the globe. Because the Internet allows the world to “pass around notes” so quickly, as Jon Stewart joked, it presents a variety of challenges for the law. Courts are often in uncharted waters when deciding disputes that involve the Internet, social media, and online privacy.

Paralegal Power Breaks are short information packed sessions that provide useful career information to paralegals at all career levels. ​

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Paralegal Power Break: Internet Law

  1. 1. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. BUSINESS LAW TODAY INTERNET LAW Roger LeRoy Miller Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved.
  2. 2. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Internet Law, Social Media, and Privacy Outline • 7-1 Internet Law • 7-2 Copyrights in Digital Information • 7-3 Social Media • 7-4 Online Defamation • 7-5 Privacy
  3. 3. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Learning Objectives (slide 1 of 2) 1. What is cybersquatting, and when is it illegal? 2. What steps have been taken to protect intellectual property rights in the digital age? 3. When does the law protect a person’s electronic communications from being intercepted or accessed?
  4. 4. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Learning Objectives (slide 2 of 2) 4. What law governs whether Internet service providers are liable for online defamatory statements made by users?
  5. 5. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-1c Cybersquatting (slide 1 of 2) – Case Example 7.2 WIPO Case No. D2012-0951 – Anticybersquatting Legislation 1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark of another. 2. The one registering, trafficking in, or using the domain name has a “bad faith intent” to profit from that trademark.
  6. 6. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-1c Cybersquatting (slide 1 of 2) – Cybersquatting and the Domain Name Distribution System • Case Example 7.3 OnNet USA, Inc. v. Play9D.com (2013) – Typosquatting – Applicability and Sanctions of the ACPA
  7. 7. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-1d Meta Tags – Key words that give Internet browsers specific information about a Web page. – Using another’s trademark in a meta tag without the owner’s permission normally constitutes trademark infringement. – Case Example 7.5 Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. v. Tabari (2010)
  8. 8. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-1e Trademark Dilution in the Online World – Trademark dilution occurs when a trademark is used, without authorization, in a way that diminishes the distinctive quality of the mark.
  9. 9. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-2 Copyrights in Digital Information  7-2a Copyright Infringement • Case Example 7.6 Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films (2005)  7-2b MP3 and File-Sharing Technology – Methods of File-Sharing – Sharing Stored Music Files • Case Example 7.8 A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (2001); Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v Grokster, Ltd. (2005) • Case Example 7.9 Maverick Recording Co. v.
  10. 10. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. Landmark in the Law  The Digital Millennium Copyright Act  Without the DMCA copyright owners would have a more difficult time obtaining legal redress against those who decrypt or copy copyrighted materials.
  11. 11. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-3a Uses in the Legal Process – Administrative Agencies • Federal regulators also use social media posts in their investigations into illegal activities. • Case Example 7.16 In re O’Brien (2013) – Employers’ Social Media Policies • Case Example 7.17 Rodriquez v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (2013)
  12. 12. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-3b The Electronic Communications Privacy Act – Prohibits the intentional interception of any wire, oral, or electronic communication. – It also prohibits the intentional disclosure or use of the information obtained by the interception. – Exclusions – Stored Communications • Case Example 7.18 Pietrylo v. Hillstone Restaurant Group (2009)
  13. 13. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-4 Online Defamation  7-4a Identifying the Author of Online Defamation – An initial issue raised by online defamation is simply discovering who is committing it. – An Internet service provider can disclose personal information about its customers only when ordered to do so by a court.
  14. 14. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-4b Liability of Internet Service Providers – Should ISPs be regarded as publishers and therefore be held liable for defamatory messages that are posted by their users in online forums or other arenas? – General Rule – Exceptions • Case Example 7.20 Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley v. Roommate.com, LLC. (2012)
  15. 15. Copyright © 2017 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. 7-5 Privacy  The right to privacy is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights and some state constitutions.  7-5a Reasonable Expectation of Privacy  7-5b Data Collection and Cookies  7-5c Internet Companies’ Privacy Policies  7-5d Protecting Consumer Privacy

×