<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; DMCA</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/tag/dmca/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 04 Aug 2010 22:32:28 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Digital Locks Loosening?</title>
		<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/digital-locks-loosening</link>
		<comments>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/digital-locks-loosening#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 30 Jul 2010 20:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Copyright Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[copyright]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.godfreadlaw.com/?p=537</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Librarian of Congress has recommended new exemptions from the prohibition on circumventing digital copy protections including one exemption for &#8220;jailbreaking&#8221; phones so that you can install your own software.  
Another sign that perhaps section 1201 might not be as broadly applied going forward is this recent decision from the Fifth Circuit.  That [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.loc.gov/today/pr/2010/10-169.html">The Librarian of Congress has recommended new exemptions</a> from the prohibition on circumventing digital copy protections including one exemption for &#8220;jailbreaking&#8221; phones so that you can install your own software.  </p>
<p>Another sign that perhaps section 1201 might not be as broadly applied going forward is <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7506001969843128972&#038;hl=en&#038;as_sdt=2&#038;as_vis=1&#038;oi=scholarr">this recent decision from the Fifth Circuit</a>.  That case involved the use of software that controlled uninterruped power supply devices.  GE and PMI were accused of copyright infringement and circumvention because they had accessed and used the software which had an already circumvented or compromised dongle.  The Fifth Circuit held that GE/PMI&#8217;s activities were not otherwise infringing and thus the circumvention was not actionable under section 1201.  This seems to be a somewhat different position than that taken in the <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4887310188384829978&#038;hl=en&#038;as_sdt=100000002&#038;as_vis=1">DeCSS case.</a>  </p>
<p>I&#8217;m not sure if this is really part of a trend, but it is encouraging for anyone who believed otherwise non-infringing activities should not give rise to a copyright lawsuit merely because a digital lock was circumvented.  Section 1201 has been used unsuccessfully in the past to try to prevent competition in the markets for garage door openers and printer ink cartridges.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2010/digital-locks-loosening/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>ISP ordered to pay $32 million for contributing to trademark infringement</title>
		<link>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2009/isp-ordered-to-pay-32-million-for-contributing-to-trademark-infringement</link>
		<comments>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2009/isp-ordered-to-pay-32-million-for-contributing-to-trademark-infringement#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 16:51:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[e-commerce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[counterfeit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DMCA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ISP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trademark infringement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.godfreadlaw.com/?p=62</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is an interesting story especially because the amount of damages awarded are so high.  The ISP was a host to a number of sites that were selling counterfeit fashion goods like Louis Vuitton handbags.  The ISP had claimed an exemption under the DMCA, however the court correctly concluded that that only applied [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is an interesting story especially because the amount of damages awarded are so high.  The ISP was a host to a number of sites that were selling counterfeit fashion goods like Louis Vuitton handbags.  The ISP had claimed an exemption under the DMCA, however the court correctly concluded that that only applied to copyright not to trademark infringement.  Something for any ISP or hosting service to keep in mind.</p>
<p>Here is the <a href="http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137385/Web_hosters_ordered_to_pay_32M_for_contributing_to_trademark_infringement?taxonomyId=144">link</a>.</p>
<p>Hat tip to @EvansIPLaw for posting a link to this article on Twitter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.godfreadlaw.com/index.php/2009/isp-ordered-to-pay-32-million-for-contributing-to-trademark-infringement/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
