Office of Personnel Management (OPM), where sensitive and detailed personnel information on 21.5 million people was subsequently compromised. This example is so gripping because of the intuitive awareness we all have that such records may contain information we would not like released — Social Security numbers, birth dates, disciplinary actions, and perhaps even health information. Chilling indeed. But consider now that similar information (Social Security records, addresses, and disciplinary action) about your children is in the hands of someone without your consent, not by computer hack, but by court order.
US copyright law’s statutory fair-use exception. I agree, in part, but suspect that the Supreme Court will discover that the case that they cite, Lenz v. UMC, is too idiosyncratic to produce a broadly useful decision. Instead, the Court should review at least two digital copyright cases that would let it resolve the following two questions:
- Have courts in the Second Circuit correctly held that 512(c) grants “safe harbors” against civil monetary and injunctive relief for copyright infringement even to online service providers that could still be punished as criminal racketeering enterprises under existing law?
- Is it time to retract the judge-made “transformative-use” component of statutory fair-use analysis that has become so confusing that the federal judge who created it has claimed that “transformative” uses of works are those in which works are not “transformed?” Something is always wrong when judge-made glosses on the meaning of “up” make it mean “down.”
no longer be available in China. This is notable, because the Times app bypassed Chinese internet censorship, and so Apple is meaningfully reducing Chinese access to unfiltered media. According to Apple, this action was in response to a declaration by the Chinese government that the app violates local law. The story has been widely reported and has caused some concern about the precedent being set. Should US companies aid in Chinese censorship? This question in turn reflects a broader unease about the way that multinational technology companies enable government misbehavior.