Archive for the ‘copyright’ Category

Sam Castree III, “Cyber-Plagiarism for Sale!: The Growing Problem of Blatant Copyright Infringement in Online Digital Media Stores”

September 19, 2012
Copyright Into Infinity

Copyright Into Infinity (Photo credit: Post-Software)

Sam Castree III (J.D. Candidate (Chicago-Kent College of Law) has posted “Cyber-Plagiarism for Sale!: The Growing Problem of Blatant Copyright Infringement in Online Digital Media Stores”. Here’s the abstract:

While much ink and rhetoric have been spilled over cyber-piracy, there has been little mention of the problem of what we shall call ‘cyber-plagiarism’: thieves copying completely the works of others and selling them on online digital media stores like Apple’s App Store and Amazon’s Kindle Store. Because the current state of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not properly address cyber-plagiarism and digital media stores, this article suggests a new safe harbor to be added to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that is fair both to the legitimate authors and to digital media store operators. The proposed safe harbor would clarify many of the ambiguities of the current § 512(c) safe harbor for “Information Residing on Systems or Networks At Direction of Users”; it would place slightly more stringent duties on digital media store operators, in return for significantly limiting the amount of damages for which the operators would be liable under secondary copyright liability.

 Download a copy of the paper via SSRN here.

Lost in Translation: Blog Plagiarism

September 11, 2012


Exhibit “A”: My post entitled “The Postman Always Rings Twice: NY Appeals Court Validates Service By Mail on Canadian Defendants” dated March 2, 2012:

Lawyers on both sides of the 49th parallel should take stock of the Fenech decision. While some commentators cling to the idea of the continuing relevance of personal service of process,  Fenech represents a sea change in conflict of laws and cross-border litigation. If the decision stands, it will put many process servers out of work and render service through the official diplomatic channels of the Central Authority moot….


...Otherwise, Canadian defendants in foreign judgment enforcement proceedings are at a marked disadvantage, both in terms of challenging a foreign court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction and subject-matter jurisdiction. Personal service should remain the cornerstone of jurisdiction, bounded by the pillars of comity, reciprocity, good faith and order and fairness. [emphasis added]

Exhibit “B”: My SSRN abstract:

The recent decision of the New York Appeals Division in New York State Thruway Auth. v Fenech represents an American revolution in conflict of laws with fundamental implications to cross-border litigation.The Fenech decision overturns prior precedent against foreign service of process by mail under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. If the Fenech decision stands, it will put many process servers out of work and render service through the official diplomatic channels of the Central Authority moot.  [emphasis added]

Exhibit “C”: This post from a “legal language translation service” website dated March 28, 2012:

“We’ve blogged about certified legal document translations [link removed] and serving a foreign defendant [link removed] under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d). In the recent case New York State Thruway Authority v. Fenech [link removed] a rather revolutionary change in the area of conflict of laws developed that will have significant implications on cross-border litigation. In summary, the decision overturns prior precedent against foreign service of process by mail under Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention. [link removed] If the decision is upheld on appeal, it will essentially put process servers out of a job and render services via official diplomatic channels moot. Instead, the process will become a vastly simplified mailing process.

Any jurisdiction that does not accept service by mail is essentially putting defendants in foreign proceedings at a disadvantage – both in terms of challenging a foreign court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. Although this will require the use of foreign language translations [link removed] of the actual process and service, overall it will make the globalized legal world more efficient – and more fair.” [emphasis added]

Of course, who cares about other author’s copyright, when you have your own copyright notice:

I thought about sending a document to the thief  plagiarist  splawger author for translation. Unfortunately, Croatian insults are often lost in translation.

Vamonos, Julian Assange, al viaje para buscarlos sonidos magicos de Ecuador!

June 22, 2012
English: Julian Assange, photo ("sunny co...

English: Julian Assange, photo (“sunny country background” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Julian Assange and Wikileaks have been fertile sources for blog posts here in the past:

Many readers are likely following the byzantine jurisdictional and procedural challenges waged by Assange in his fight against his extradition from the UK to Sweden (en route to the U.S.) to be “questioned” by the Swedish prosecutor about alleged sexual assault/rape allegations (note that Assange has yet to be formally charged).

Legal pundits and arm chair commentators abound, but I commend readers to Mike Semple Piggot’s excellent podcast  interview of Francis FitzGibbon QC on the Assange asylum bid.

As this political and legal drama unfolds, for those with a penchant for esoteric legal academic analysis on Wikileaks, state secrets and copyright law, James Freedman (Student-at-law, Stanford Law School) has posted “Protecting State Secrets as Intellectual Property: A Strategy for Prosecuting WikiLeaks” Stanford Journal of International Law Vol. 48, No. 1, p. 185, 2012. Here’s the abstract:

Criminal statutes generally deployed against those who leak classified government documents — such as the Espionage Act of 1917 — are ill-equipped to go after third-party international distribution organizations like WikiLeaks. One potential tool that could be used to prosecute WikiLeaks is copyright law. The use of copyright law in this context is rarely mentioned, and when it is, the approach is largely derided by experts, who decry it as contrary to the purposes of copyright. Using copyright to protect state secrets, however, particularly if done through suit in a foreign court, escapes a number of the impediments to a WikiLeaks prosecution, such as the limited scope of narrowly tailored U.S. criminal statutes or the need to apply U.S. law extraterritorially and extradite defendants. Admittedly, using copyright law for these purposes presents its own set of problems, perhaps most intractable under U.S. law, but still significant in the case of suits brought in a foreign court under foreign law. This Note will explore these difficulties, such as the government works issue, potential fair use or fair dealing defenses, as well as various non-legal obstacles to success, eventually reaching the conclusion that prosecuting WikiLeaks internationally for copyright violations is potentially more viable than any of the methods of criminal prosecution heretofore explored publicly by government attorneys and legal scholars.

Download a pdf copy of the paper via SSRN here.

Now, for a little musical tribute to Julian Assange as awaits his fate in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, England:

Supreme Court of Canada Denies Leave in Domain Name Dispute Case

May 24, 2012

Today, the Supreme Court of Canada denied application for leave to appeal in Lojas Renner S.A. v. Tucows.Com Co. (Ont.) (Civil) (By Leave) (34481) Coram: Deschamps / Fish / Karakatsanis.

The dispute was over the right to the internet domain name “”. The applicant, Lojas Renner S.A., operates a number of retail department stores in Brazil and owns the registered trademark “Renner”, while the respondent,, is a Canadian domain name registrar which purchased the domain name “” in 2006 and is the registrant of that domain name with the internationally-recognized non-profit organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”).   Lojas Renner S.A.’s motion to set aside service ex juris of statement of claim and to stay the action for want of jurisdiction was granted. The Ontario Court of Appeal unanimously allowed’s appeal. The Court of Appeal for Ontario held that Ontario had jurisdiction over the dispute, finding that a domain name is personal property and that presence-based jurisdiction is established if the plaintiff’s servers are physically located in Ontario.

Lojas Renner S.A. unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal on the following issues:

  • Whether the Court of Appeal erred in stating that the policy of the UDRP is to “refer” legitimate disputes to the Court?
  • Whether the Court of Appeal erred in holding that the Superior Court of Ontario’s jurisdiction was “unlimited and unrestricted”?
  • Whether the Court of Appeal erred in making no assessment of whether the claim before it was justiciable?
  • Whether the Court of Appeal erred in determining in the abstract that a domain name was “personal property in Ontario”?
  • Whether the Court of Appeal erred in failing to consider whether it accords with principles of order, fairness and comity to read “intangible” into Rule 17.02 – Rules of Civil Procedure, R.S.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rules 17.02(a), 17.06(1).

I previously wrote a case comment about this important internet jurisdiction case: “The Internet as Property: The Implications of Tucows.Com Co. v. Lojas Renner S.A., and SOPA”, The Globetrotter, OBA International Law Section Newsletter, Volume 16, No. 1 – December 2011 [pdf].

I Hate RSS Scrapers Who Breach My Copyright

May 11, 2012

I can’t stand Flawging or Splawging (spam law blogging), but I genuinely detest Blog Scraping, including RSS scraping.

It is more than plagiarism.

It is intellectual property theft.

The Trial Warrior Blog is a personal law blog (blawg). I devote a significant amount of time and energy in writing posts for the benefit of my readers. It is NOT commercial speech or lawyer advertising and is in no way associated with my legal practice or my law firm.

I have previously taken a stand on this issue, which resulted in abandoning its RSS aggregator feed.

Today I noticed that one of my posts has been redirected by an RSS feed in violation of my copyright. The only exceptions are where I have authorized or consented to have my blawg being added to a RSS feed aggregator (e.g. Canadian Law Blogs List at because Steve Matthews had the courtesy to ask first) or the exclusive, non-transferrable license granted to Newstex to syndicate my blawg, for which I receive a nominal royalty which covers administrative costs associated with operating my blawg. (more…)

%d bloggers like this: