Posted on

Ro’bots’ Are So Yesterday–It’s Just ‘Bots’ Now

Want some scary statistics for Halloween? In the first six months of 2005, the average number of “phishing” e-mails went from about 3 million to more than 5½ million, according to the Symantec, distributor and licensor, among other things, of firewall and virus protection software. Phishing, in case you’ve missed the news, is a scam which uses e-mail to spoof legitimate businesses such as banks and airlines, and attempts to entice you to enter personal data which can then be used by criminals. “Update your account” or “Your Security May Have Been Compromised and We Need You to Verify Your Password” are typical messages, often accompanied by logos and names that appear to be all too real.

Symantec also discovered 1,862 new software vulnerabilities, over the six month period—almost all moderate to high security threats and 60 percent were in Web-based applications. Symantec also found that the average number of denial-of-service attacks jumped from 119 to 927 a day during the first half of 2005. Why the increase? Personal computers are being overwhelmed with “bots”—penetrating vulnerabilities in personal computer software that allow the hackers—online criminals—to remotely control home computers. Not convinced? By monitoring customers and their networks the numbers of active bots more than doubled from 4,348 to 10,352 bot computers. The SANS Internet Storm Center, a not-for-profit organization that tracks hacking trends, detects an average of 260,000 bots each day that are out there looking for computers that are vulnerable to attack. No longer limited to “denial of service” attacks by triggering junk data to attack—and ultimately overwhelm—a legitimate website, these bots now are beginning to be used to generate SPAM and malicious code.

Posted on

100% Legal = 100% Deceptive

What if you offer a tutorial service that teaches how to use peer-to-peer file-sharing programs and refers members to P2P networks but doesn’t actually license file-sharing programs, and doesn’t operate a file-sharing network itself? Sounds like it would be tough to prove copyright infringement—the Grokster case notwithstanding.

But what if you advertise that by becoming a member, subscribing and paying a fee, your P2P file-sharing is legal. “PEOPLE ARE NOT GETTING SUED FOR USING OUR SOFTWARE. YES! IT IS 100% LEGAL,” or “Rest assured that File-Sharing is 100% legal.” What if customers are deceived into thinking that by becoming a member, P2P file-sharing is legal? Remember, when anyone uses a P2P file-sharing program to download copyrighted material, or to make that material available to others without the copyright owner’s permission, it’s copyright infringement. Well the FTC has charged Cashier Myricks Jr., doing business as MP3downloadcity.com, with deceptive advertising by falsely claiming that membership in the service makes P2P file-sharing legal; and acting on the FTC’s action, a U.S. District Court judge has stopped the deceptive ads. The FTC is seeking to make the ban permanent.

Want to know more? The FTC has published “P2P File Sharing: Evaluating the Risks.” Oh, and you should also probably call Rimon…after all, we know advertising, marketing and promotion like nobody else.

Posted on

Telecommuting Can Be Taxing

A Tennessee employee worked for a Tennessee company in Tennessee and all was right with the world. But then the company dissolved, and the individual was hired by a client of his former company—the client is a New York company. Although he traveled to New York on business (and dutifully reported the 25 percent of his time he spent in New York), the rest of his time he earned his living from Tennessee, working by computer and telephone. The individual paid the New York taxing authority (and never disputed) the pro rata portion of his income for the time he spent in New York, but the remainder of his work was done in Tennessee and not (so he thought) subject to New York tax.

A few months ago, a divided Court of Appeals in New York ruled that the 25 percent connection to New York supported the argument that this “minimal connection” allows New York to tax everything the taxpayer earns because it is earned from a New York company! “Foul,” cries the dissent—what about the secretary working in the Boston office of a New York-based law firm? A sales manager for a New York company working in California? This was a very close decision (4–3) but the court ruled that tax was payable to New York on 100 percent of the income earned from the New York company.

Posted on

Digital Music, Film, Publishing & More—-Grok This!

Literally as this issue headed to press, the Supreme Court released its unanimous decision in the case of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster—a decision that is likely to have monumental consequences for years to come. To summarize the basic issues, for many years peer-to-peer file-sharing networks have relied on the 1984 Sony v. Universal Studios decision (“Betamax case”) which held the distribution of a commercial product capable of substantial noninfringing use could NOT give rise to contributory liability unless the distributor had actual knowledge of specific instances of infringement and failed to act. With peer-to-peer file-sharing, the network software architecture is decentralized, making it unlikely that the provider of the file-sharing software (in this case Grokster and StreamCast) could actually know of any specific instances. Even the theories of vicarious infringement were thrown out by the lower courts because neither Grokster nor StreamCast monitored, controlled or supervised the use of the software (nor did they have an independent duty to police against infringement).

Enter the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case on appeal from the 9th Circuit, which held that Grokster and StreamCast could not be liable for contributory infringement because there was no ability to prove actual knowledge and the software was capable of substantial non-infringing use. To give readers context, evidence was introduced indicating that on the FastTrack and Gnutella networks, more than 100 million copies of file-sharing software had been downloaded and billions of files are shared across those networks each month! The court noted “the probable scope of copyright infringement is staggering.”

So the Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit decision—but not for the reasons you might think. In my view, the Supreme Court did not overturn or even modify the Betamax case. Distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing software using a decentralized indexing system to share copyrighted songs and movies, and which is capable of substantial non-infringing use, cannot be held liable for contributory infringement absent showing the distributors had specific knowledge and made a material contribution to direct infringement. The court also confirmed that software distributors cannot be held liable for vicarious infringement without showing the ability to block direct infringement by users.

The Supreme Court went to great pains in overturning the 9th Circuit to note “this case is significantly different from Sony and reliance on that case to rule in favor of StreamCast and Grokster was error.” The Sony case applied to distribution of a product that had both lawful and unlawful uses and sought to impose liability because Sony knew some users might use the product unlawfully. That case held it is inequitable to impute fault and corresponding secondary liability based on the unlawful acts of others, where the product has substantial lawful utility.

Continue reading “Digital Music, Film, Publishing & More—-Grok This!”

Posted on

While You Were Sleeping

In February, in the Circuit Court in Miller County, Arkansas, some plaintiffs—led by Lane’s Gifts, an Arkansas retailer—sued Google, Yahoo!, Time Warner, Disney, and Ask Jeeves, among other Internet companies, alleging that these companies knowingly overcharged for the advertising they sold and that they conspired with each other in doing so! The plaintiffs now want the suit certified as a class action which relates to the growing problem of “click fraud” a practice our very own litigator and legal guru Peter Raymond knows and has spoken about. Clicking ads or even automating the click-throughs—in some cases by competitors—can illegally run up the advertising charges, and analysts estimate these can increase by more than 15 percent because of such fraud.

Posted on

NY Pursues Spy and Adware—Deceptive Practices At Issue

On April 28, 2005, New York’s Attorney General sued Intermix Media—a major Internet marketer based in Los Angeles, claiming “spyware” and “adware” were secretly installed, which, among other things, can redirect browsers to unwanted websites, can add toolbar functions and icons, and distribute ads that pop up on your monitor. The suit alleges violation of New York State General Business Law provisions against false advertising and deceptive business practices, and also alleges trespass under New York common law. Intermix’ software would download, install and then direct advertising to computers based on user activity—often without notice and without an uninstall application—when a user visited a website, played a game or downloaded a screen saver. The Attorney General’s office claims that the lengthy licensing agreement purporting to seek permission, even when used, is misleading or inaccurate.

Posted on

Online Contracts Are Valid (Everyone Knows That) – So Why More Litigation?

Only a few years ago, risk managers were concerned whether ‘click wrap’ or online contracts would create enforceable contracts. With laws and court cases over the years, the issue has been reasonably settled. They are. But the focus of recent cases has turned to the details—how is effective notice given online? Are there clauses or terms that require prominence to be enforceable? How can we determine if online formalities are sufficient for legal purposes? What about mandatory arbitration clauses? Are choice of law or choice of forum clauses enforceable? Are the assents necessary to waive one’s right to a jury trial or cut short the statute of limitations, the same as those prohibiting use of the website for illegal purposes? Can you bind a user browsing on the Internet to the terms of use when a website simply says “by browsing or visiting this site you must, and you agree to, comply with and be bound by our terms of use”? Do you always need the “I Agree” assent generally ascribed to contract formation. The answers are: it depends. Big surprise from a lawyer, right?

In general, common sense helps when creating online contracts (hiring a knowledgeable Rimon lawyer is good common sense). Ask some simple questions: (a) is your notice of terms reasonable and conspicuous, and can it be bypassed? (b) how do you know if a customer has agreed to your terms – by browsing, by clicking a link or by entering particular words of assent? (c) do the users have a choice if they don’t want to be bound by the terms – is it clear what they should do or not do? (d) are there laws that apply to your business, your industry or in jurisdictions you do business, that relate to online contracts? (e) is there a means to modify, terminate or otherwise alter the agreement—how will the customer know? and (f) keep records.

Some simple principles, but as you can appreciate, often easier to list in an outline than carry out in practice. And there are more. The cost of failure or noncompliance is high. Need to get it right? Call Rimon—we’ll help.

Posted on

Internet Streaming Media—-The FCC Just Says Yes

Last month we reported the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Grokster and Streamcast Networks were not violating copyright laws by making software that allows people to swap digital content. Just a few days ago, over the objections from the motion picture, broadcast and professional sports industries, the FCC approved technology allowing digital recording services like TiVo to transmit television programming to subscribers over the Internet, allowing programming, for example, to be viewed anywhere an Internet connection was available. Digital recording services and streaming programs remotely threatens local advertising relevance and revenue, while still allowing viewers to edit out commercials. Advertisers are you paying attention??

Posted on

Court Sanctions UBS for Destroying E-Mails

On July 20, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York imposed sanctions against UBS Warburg for destroying relevant e-mail messages during the course of litigation (Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, et al., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (S.D.N.Y, July 20, 2004)). The Court ordered UBS to pay expenses and attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff, granted plaintiff’s request for further discovery, and agreed to instruct the jury that a negative inference may be drawn against UBS as a result of the missing evidence. The case provides important guidance for counsel on electronic discovery issues and record management, and the Court notes counsel is expected to take some affirmative steps: (1) “identify sources of discoverable information”; (2) “put in place a litigation hold and make that known to all relevant employees by communicating with them directly” and not only repeat these instructions “regularly” but also “monitor compliance”; (3) “call for employees to produce copies of relevant electronic evidence”; and (4) “safeguarding any archival media” the client must preserve. Given the notoriety of the case, these practices will likely become a de facto standard in evaluating electronic discovery issues and requests for sanctions. Got litigators? Call Rimon—we not only have knowledgeable litigators, but we also have an entire team of professionals skilled in data management, record retention, and compliance in and out of litigation. Try us, you’ll like us.

Posted on

Spyware

A Utah statute, the first in the nation, entitled “The Spyware Control Act,” was originally scheduled to take effect on May 3, but has been delayed by a legal challenge brought by a New York-based company, WhenU.com. WhenU.com filed suit in Salt Lake City on April 12, seeking a declaration that Utah’s new law violates the U.S. and Utah Constitutions. WhenU.com claims the act—which targets software downloaded onto a consumer’s computer that triggers pop-up advertisements—unfairly targets online contextual advertising services that aren’t linked to websites, but instead sells ads based on consumer browsing preferences. The Utah Attorney General agreed to delay the effective date of the Act until the hearing to allow WhenU.com to seek a preliminary injunction delaying implementation of the law. WhenU.com hopes it can persuade the court to delay enforcement until a trial can be held to test WhenU.com’s claims that the law is unconstitutional. At the hearing, WhenU.com’s lawyers argued that regulation of advertising on the Internet is a matter of interstate commerce subject to federal, not state, jurisdiction. Arguing the State’s case, lawyers noted that disrupting a consumer’s browsing and highlighting competitors goods and services is the kind of consumer protection the Utah Legislature has a right to prohibit. In protecting consumers, lawyers for the State also argued that computer users are often tricked into installing such software without adequate disclosures and then find it difficult to remove when unintended or unwanted consequences arise.

WhenU.com noted its software is only installed with consumer consent and that pop-up ads offer consumers useful free features (e.g., weather, screen savers, tool bars) in exchange for allowing software that tracks browsing habits and generates related ads on the screen. With such context-based advertising software, a consumer browsing mortgage lending websites might be offered home loan information from one or more lending institutions. Stay tuned.