Archive for: contract law

Funny terms and Carl wants to be sued

Thursday, September 4th, 2008

There is an article available at www.valleywag.com website commenting on funny terms from TOU/TOS licenses. There is also a post regarding recent action of Carl Malamud at www.slashdot.org website. Go Carl!

California claims copyright to its laws, and warns people not to share them. And that’s not sitting right with Internet gadfly, and open-access hero, Carl Malamud. He has spent the last couple months scanning tens of thousands of pages containing city, county and state laws — think building codes, banking laws, etc. Malamud wants California to sue him, which is almost a given if the state wants to continue claiming copyright. He thinks a federal court will rule in his favor: It is illegal to copyright the law since people are required to know it. Malamud helped force the SEC to put corporate filings online in 1994, and did the same with the patent office. He got the Smithsonian to loosen its claim of copyright, CSPAN to stop forbidding people from sharing its videos, and most recently Oregon to quit claiming copyright on state laws.

I’d like to remind you of some of my post I’ve “commited” regarding licenses’ issues. Among other things are posts such as “Oh, those Internet’s contracts” and “TOS not so absolute“.

Another interesting judgment

Tuesday, July 15th, 2008

Sometime ago I did a post titled “It’s going to be interesting decision“. It was issued yesterday.

Blizzard owns a valid copyright in the game client software, Blizzard has granted a limited license for WoW players to use the software, use of the software with Glider falls outside the scope of the license established in section 4 of the TOU, use of Glider includes copying to RAM within the meaning of section 106 of the Copyright Act, users of WoW and Glider are not entitled to a section 117 defense, and Glider users therefore infringe Blizzard’s copyright. MDY does not dispute that the other requirements for contributory and vicarious copyright infringement are met, nor has MDY established a misuse defense. The Court accordingly will grant summary judgment in favor of Blizzard with respect to liability on the contributory and vicarious copyright infringement claims in Counts II and III.

Open WiFi ≠ copyright infringement

Friday, July 11th, 2008

You will find more details regarding my laconic topic in the article available at www.arstechnica.com website. Logic won over lobby. Very good.

Smashing magazine Techkultura

Tuesday, June 3rd, 2008

I sometimes ask myself where the inspiration ends. The Polish version of my post also deals with some other less or more legal issues but I do not think that informing my English readers about Polish companies which use at least “strange TOS” of Twitter’s clones is relevant. I’m also not sure if its good to spare some money from the project’s budget that one could spend for a legal advice or some consultations with lawyers to answer the question if the TOS you provide are written in accordance with the law.

What a disclaimer

Monday, May 26th, 2008

Not so long time ago I’ve published a post titled “Enforcing EULAs“. Meanwhile, looking through the net I found such release as Ahead.Nero.v8.3.2.1.Incl.Keymaker-EMBRACE and I’ve also noticed such a statement in the .nfo file.

EMBRACE, nor its members, can be held responsible
for anything they release. If it is illegal in your
country (as it is in most), you ARE NOT ALLOWED to
use it, under any circumstances. We are in the scene
for the fun, NOT to harm software developers. Good
software deserves your respect, go buy it!

Our software is released “as is”. We are in no way
to be blamed for anything that happens to your pc if
you use this. The author here by disclaims all the
warranties related to this software, expresed or
implid, including damage to hardware/software and/or
any date from the user of this product.

Your use of this product assumes that you have read
and accepted this disclaimer.

Do I need to mention that it is really easy to aviod any legal problems just by the use of free software alternatives? More details regarding this .nfo file are available at www.nfodb.com website. Some of my post that may touch similar issues are gathered under contract law category.

Enforcing EULAs

Tuesday, April 29th, 2008

Selling botnets for particular attacks, black markets for stolen identities, and malware construction kits are all now par for the course for the increasingly commercial malware industry. Discovering that malware authors have actually turned to End-User License Agreements (EULAs) in an attempt to protect their own intellectual property, however, most definitely qualifies as something new, different, and beautifully ironic.

More details in the article available at www.arstechnica.com website.

What about the eforcement of such “agreement” and the US courts? I guess there is no dubt that such contract would be deemed as null and void. See holding in the case Weisbren v. Peppercorn Prods., Inc., 41 Cal. App. 4th 246, 262, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 437, 447 (1995), citing Lewis & Queen v. N.M. Ball Sons, 48 Cal. 2d 141, 150, 308 P.2d 713, 719 (1957).

The courts generally will not enforce an illegal bargain or lend their assistance to a party who seeks compensation for an illegal act. The reason for this refusal is not that the courts are unaware of possible injustice between the parties, and that the defendant may be left in possession of some benefit he should in good conscience turn over to the plaintiff, but that this consideration is outweighed by the importance of deterring illegal conduct. Knowing that they will receive no help from the courts and must trust completely to each other’s good faith, the parties are less likely to enter an illegal arrangement in the first place.

Digital goods

Friday, April 4th, 2008

There are recent and important changes at www.ebay.com. The site has changed its rules regarding auctions of digital goods. More detailas available at www.ebaychatter.com website.

What if…

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

A good reader of this website has sent me a link to this hilarious movie clip.

If you had a thought about trademark infringement (in the US law perspective) I decided to help you with some keywords. Those are trademark tarnishment and parody defence.

What a license!

Thursday, August 9th, 2007

Conditions of a clickwrap license agreement described in two words. Just check a post available at www.stopbadware.org website.

I would like to recommend you to read a judgement in the case Specht v. Netscape Communications Corp., 150 F. Supp. 2d 585 (S.D.N.Y.2001), where you may find a deep analysis of those types of licenses in the US law.

You should also find some interesting articles for example Lemley, Mark A., “Terms of Use” . Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 91, 2006. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=917926.

Oh, those Internet’s contracts

Monday, July 30th, 2007

A very simple issue in the Civil law countries had to be a subject of a writ of mandamus in the U.S. In the case Douglas v. United States Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 17061 (9th Cir. 2007), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that an Internet company who provided the Terms Of Use (also defined by academics as browserwrap license/agreement/contracts) can not update and enforce them as a binding contract without proper notification issued to its users.

Judge Alex Kozinski was a member of three-judge panel which decided this case. He is a very interesting person who wrote many rulings and articles concerning trademark law and the right of publicity. He used this famous “Hollywood Circuit” term to describe the law made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the text of a judgement in the case White v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993).

A full list with links to his articles is available at www.alex.kozinski.com website. If you are interested in trademark law and the right of publicity issues I recommend you to read S.Y. Reeves, “Speech-zilla Meets Trademark Kong?: How the Hollywood Circuit Got It Wrong in the Barbie Battle, Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc.”, 4 Minn. Intell. Prop. Rev. 285, PDF file.

At the end of this post I would like to paste a short fragment of the judgement in the case White v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc., 989 F.2d 1512 (9th Cir. 1993) at 1512-1513. It brings up many interesting issues.

Saddam Hussein wants to keep advertisers from using his picture in unflattering contexts. [fn1] Clint Eastwood doesn’t want tabloids to write about him. [fn2] Rudolf Valentino’s heirs want to control his film biography. [fn3] The Girl Scouts don’t want their image soiled by association with certain activities. [fn4] George Lucas wants to keep Strategic Defense Initiative fans from calling it “Star Wars.” [fn5] Pepsico doesn’t want singers to use the word “Pepsi” in their songs. [fn6] Guy Lombardo wants an exclusive property right to ads that show big bands playing on New Year’s Eve. [fn7] Uri Geller thinks he should be paid for ads showing psychics bending metal through telekinesis. [fn8] Paul Prudhomme, that household name, thinks the same about ads featuring corpulent bearded chefs. [fn9] And scads of copyright holders see purple when their creations are made fun of. [fn10]

Fn1. See Eben Shapiro, Rising Caution on Using Celebrity Images, N.Y. Times, Nov. 4, 1992, at D20 (Iraqi diplomat objects on right of publicity grounds to ad containing Hussein’s picture and caption “History has shown what happens when one source controls all the information”).

Fn2. Eastwood v. Superior Court, 149 Cal. App. 3d 409, 198 Cal. Rptr. 342 (1983). [**3]

Fn3. Guglielmi v. Spelling-Goldberg Prods., 25 Cal. 3d 860, 160 Cal. Rptr. 352, 603 P.2d 454 (1979) (Rudolph Valentino); see also Maheu v. CBS, Inc., 201 Cal. App. 3d 662, 668, 247 Cal. Rptr. 304 (1988) (aide to Howard Hughes). Cf. Frank Gannon, Vanna Karenina in Vanna Karenina and Other Reflections (1988) (A humorous short story with a tragic ending. “She thought of the first day she had met VR _ _ SKY. How foolish she had been. How could she love a man who wouldn’t even tell her all the letters in his name?”).

Fn4. Girl Scouts v. Personality Posters Mfg., 304 F. Supp. 1228 (S.D.N.Y. 1969) (poster of a pregnant girl in a Girl Scout uniform with the caption “Be Prepared”).

Fn5. Lucasfilm Ltd. v. High Frontier, 622 F. Supp. 931 (D.D.C. 1985).

Fn6. Pepsico Inc. claimed the lyrics and packaging of grunge rocker Tad Doyle’s “Jack Pepsi” song were “offensive to [it] and [are] likely to offend [its] customers,” in part because they “associate [Pepsico] and its Pepsi marks with intoxication and drunk driving.” Russell, Doyle Leaves Pepsi Thirsty for Compensation, Billboard, June 15, 1991, at 43. Conversely, the Hell’s Angels recently sued Marvel Comics to keep it from publishing a comic book called “Hell’s Angel,” starring a character of the same name. Marvel settled by paying $ 35,000 to charity and promising never to use the name “Hell’s Angel” again in connection with any of its publications. Marvel, Hell’s Angels Settle Trademark Suit, L.A. Daily J., Feb. 2, 1993, § II, at 1. [**4]

Trademarks are often reflected in the mirror of our popular culture. See Truman Capote, Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1958); Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., Breakfast of Champions (1973); Tom Wolfe, The Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test (1968) (which, incidentally, includes a chapter on the Hell’s Angels); Larry Niven, Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex in All the Myriad Ways (1971); Looking for Mr. Goodbar (1977); The Coca-Cola Kid (1985) (using Coca-Cola as a metaphor for American commercialism); The Kentucky Fried Movie (1977); Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man (1991); The Wonder Years (ABC 1988-present) (”Wonder Years” was a slogan of Wonder Bread); Tim Rice & Andrew Lloyd Webber, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dream Coat (musical).

Hear Janis Joplin, Mercedes Benz, on Pearl (CBS 1971); Paul Simon, Kodachrome, on There Goes Rhymin’ Simon (Warner 1973); Leonard Cohen, Chelsea Hotel, on The Best of Leonard Cohen (CBS 1975); Bruce Springsteen, Cadillac Ranch, on The River (CBS 1980); Prince, Little Red Corvette, on 1999 (Warner 1982); dada, Dizz Knee Land, on Puzzle (IRS 1992) (”I just robbed a grocery store - I’m going to Disneyland / I just flipped off President George - I’m going to Disneyland”); Monty Python, Spam, on The Final Rip Off (Virgin 1988); Roy Clark, Thank God and Greyhound [You're Gone], on Roy Clark’s Greatest Hits Volume I (MCA 1979); Mel Tillis, Coca-Cola Cowboy, on The Very Best of (MCA 1981) (”You’re just a Coca-Cola cowboy / You’ve got an Eastwood smile and Robert Redford hair . . .”).

Dance to Talking Heads, Popular Favorites 1976-92: Sand in the Vaseline (Sire 1992); Talking Heads, Popsicle, on id. Admire Andy Warhol, Campbell’s Soup Can. Cf. REO Speedwagon, 38 Special, and Jello Biafra of the Dead Kennedys.

The creators of some of these works might have gotten permission from the trademark owners, though it’s unlikely Kool-Aid relished being connected with LSD, Hershey with homicidal maniacs, Disney with armed robbers, or Coca-Cola with cultural imperialism. Certainly no free society can demand that artists get such permission. [**5]

Fn7. Lombardo v. Doyle, Dane & Bernbach, Inc., 58 A.D.2d 620, 396 N.Y.S.2d 661 (1977).

Fn8. Geller v. Fallon McElligott, No. 90-Civ-2839 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 1991) (involving a Timex ad).

Fn9. Prudhomme v. Procter & Gamble Co., 800 F. Supp. 390 (E.D. La. 1992).

Fn10. E.g., Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. v. Campbell, 972 F.2d 1429 (6th Cir. 1992); Cliffs Notes v. Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc., 886 F.2d 490 (2d Cir. 1989); Fisher v. Dees, 794 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1986); MCA, Inc. v. Wilson, 677 F.2d 180 (2d Cir. 1981); Elsmere Music, Inc. v. NBC, 623 F.2d 252 (2d Cir. 1980); Walt Disney Prods. v. The Air Pirates, 581 F.2d 751 (9th Cir. 1978); Berlin v. E.C. Publications, Inc., 329 F.2d 541 (2d Cir. 1964); Lowenfels v. Nathan, 2 F. Supp. 73 (S.D.N.Y. 1932).

Such judgments and the subject matter discussed in there make learning process of U.S. law a big adventure for me since long time. But I am not a nerd/geek/swot (choose whatever you want), just to be clear. ;) I will write another post about legal issues on browserwrap license/agreements/contracts later.

Sung license

Thursday, July 26th, 2007

Not such a long time ago I wrote a post titled Contractual liability for rootkits. Today, I read a short story about the (in)famous Sony/BMG End User License Agreemen being sung by a women’s choir and recorded by Toronto recording artist Brian Joseph Davis. Check www.wired.com website. Additionaly I would recommend you to visit www.reasonableagreement.org website.

Contractual liability for rootkits

Thursday, July 12th, 2007

Sony BMG has filled summons against The Amergence Group Inc., (formerly SunnComm International), in connection with MediaMax CD 3 technology, used by Sony to “protect” music CDs against consumers, which as it was later discovered wasn’t such “effective technological measure” but a very efficient rootkit. More details about BMG Music v. Amergence Group Inc., County Clerk Civil Index, NewYork County, New York Case Number: 602201/2007, available at www.slashdot.org website.

I will also remind you that there was a class action suit against Sony in 2006 that was settled later. For more details check In re: SONY BMG CD Technologies Litigation, Case No. 1:05-cv-09575-NRB, United States District Court For The Southern District Of New York, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 9575, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 9329.

There is couple of really interesting articles as regards to theories of contractual liability for defective computer software. Amon others, I recommend you to read P.A. Alces, A.S. Book, “When Y2K Causes “Economic Loss” to “Other Property”", 84 Minn. L. Rev. 1 (1999), F.E. Zollers, A. McMullin, S.N. Hurd, P. Shears, “No more soft landings for software: liability for defects in an industry that has come of age”, 21 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 745 (2005) and L. Longdin, “Liability for defects in bespoke software: are lawyers and information scientists speaking the same language?”, International Journal of Law and Information Technology, Volume 8, Number 1, Oxford University Press 2000.

Since this post is about contractual liability for defective software I should mention at least two well-known cases in this subject matter i.e. Kaczmarek v. Microsoft Corp., 39 F. Supp. 2d 974 (N.D. Ill. 1999) and In re AOL, Inc. Version 5.0 Software Litig., 168 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (S.D. Fla. 2001).

TOS not so absolute

Saturday, June 9th, 2007

A very important judgement in the case Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39516 (D. Pa. 2007). Comments on this case and its original text are available at www.slashdot.org website. I talked to Carey Lening about it two days ago and I agree with her that the ruling will be reversed during the appelation. As an additional read I recommend you an article by R.D. Kunkel, “Recent Developments in Shrinkwrap, Clickwrap and Browsewrap Licenses in the United States”, Murdoch University Electronic Journal of Law, Volume 9, Number 3, September 2002.