#it law

[copypastafarian-blog]

Re-Blog : Behavioural tracking: You’re being stalked across the web

http://www.macleans.ca/economy/business/behavioural-tracking-youre-being-stalked-across-the-web/

‘While the industry, which generates some US$31 billion annually, describes behavioural tracking as a “win-win”—advertisers enjoy more click-throughs while web surfers see more ads for things they might actually be interested in—privacy advocates warn it’s all taking place behind the scenes without people’s knowledge and little regulatory oversight, raising the potential for abuse. They also scoff at industry claims that users’ anonymity is being protected because cookies track computers, not people. We live in an age where the web is increasingly accessed from personal devices like iPhones and iPads and is used for everything from personal banking to diagnosing potential health issues.’

The video below is a great Ted talk by Gary Kovacs. He explains how our internet browsing is analogous to Hansel and Gretel and the act of leaving breadcrumbs in the forest. This is apparent in how items are marketed to us online, or how plane ticket prices increase once the ticket website has tracked our interest in a certain location, or even when apps use our locations to show interesting events around us. 

While this may have its positives an argument can definitely be made in giving users more information about what they are actually providing websites in terms of information. In the end, do we really know how much of our privacy we retain after a web visit?

[lawdemia-blog]

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 was given Royal Assent and thereby enacted into law late last year. It was met with ferocious criticism, being dubbed “The Snooper’s Charter” and described as borderline autocratic and despotic by its opponents. The crux of opposition to the Act is based on the fact that it (a) requires that internet providers store citizens’ internet history for a year; and (b) in effect allows the Secretary of State to authorize a public body (such as a police agency) to access this data without a warrant. [Continue Reading]

[kyu-pine]

the way im wheezing at everything...i should attempt writing

[arnottstech]

Insights into IT Law: What Makes It So Important

IT Law refers to the category of law that applies to information technology (IT). It covers all of the different legal issues that can arise

Any concerns regarding the law of IT is IT law that entails cloud computing and the internet. If you are facing any issue with data theft or transactions carried out electronically, contact Arnotts Technology Lawyers to get assistance from our reliable IT lawyer for a solution.

[expatprolawfirm]

It business structuring, investment support, employment and services contracts, corporate documents, current business needs support and others.

Learn more about IT Law Service from Expatpro firm 

[techlawrefined]

Who owns fan art?

Fan creations are a crucial part of any fandom. It‘s always amazing to see what fan fictions and fan arts communities are able to create and come up with.

But who actually has the ownership - meaning copyright - of the created works? It would seem odd if fan creators would be able to receive enumeration for their „Marvel“ art. However, is the conclusion that IP-owners are able to use and sell fan art - no strings attached? To the surprise of possible many, in practice, apparently so. For example, just recently Disney and Marvel have caused an uproar in the Star Wars community for brazenly copy and pasting fan art into their comic issues.

How is this legally possible and what role do concepts such as “fair use” and “derivative work” play? For anyone looking for answers, I can only highly recommend the following video in Hoeg Law’s “Virtual Legality” series.

[mollyeahlcitlaw]

week4

Copyright is deemed as an exclusive right to the right-holder both in the United Kingdom. This week learned knowledge about infringement of IT copyright, at that time I came to realize how challenging to balance information spreading and copyright protection.

“…authors with the exclusive right to authorise or prohibit any communication to the public of their works…” (Article 3(1) of Directive [2001/29]). A large amount of this week’s reading case are interpreting this article, underlining “public” and “communication”.

Svensson v. Retrieve Sverige(case c-466/12), answers the question about extent of authorization. Even though RS’s hyperlink clearly made the protected work to an indeterminate number of potential recipient and implied a fairly large number of persons, because original website made available to all cyber citizens, which declared no new public, no new authorization. Refer to original judgement, “a public not taken in to account by the copyright holder when they authorized the initial communication to the public”.

In contrast, Land Nordrhein Westfalen v. Renkhoff, the public changed dramatically in 2 websites, one for travelers and one for primary school students, so this hyperlink was ruled illegal.

However Svensson case is not solve the problem, that what if the website setting hyperlink is illegal at the beginning? How to apply to tort liability?

Another case GS Media v. Sanoma Media Netherlands gave the answer. The CJEU discussed whether a website link to a wok placed online without consent of right holder was a communication to the pubic depended on financial gain. If it is provided other than financial gain, by someone who did not know and could not be reasonably know, that not accounts to tort and vice versa.

One famous American case cannot be ignored, that is Perfect 10, Inc v. Amazon ＆ Google, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit used “server test” and concluded that use of thumbnail version of plaintiff’s images was a fair use.

Comparing EU with USA, it is not difficult to find that in terms of hyperlink, or copyright behind this, EU behaves more aggressively to IT industry when USA supports those tech giants. As far as I am concerned, this phenomenon is based on IT industry’s different developing and boosting speed, no one can deny that USA is and will continue dominating IT market for a long time. Interest patters are formed, apple, google, facebook, twitter as well as amazon, those represents every area on Internet.

In conclusion, points of CJEU can be a great reference for China to solve with hyperlink issues. Before I learn this week reading session, I even not noticed there is a legal question in hyperlink. It is too normal as well as widespread to notice it.

In China, most judicial practice is concentrating on setting the link to legal website, and in general, only when the linked website constitutes infringement then website initiating links would assume corresponding responsibility indirectly. China still has a long way to go.