Google was granted a preliminary injunction against Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood by U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi, said a Digital Citizens Alliance (DCA) news release. Hood’s supporters told us Monday's ruling highlights Judge Henry Wingate’s diligence in such a high-profile case. Google advocates said the decision points to a higher likelihood of its eventual success in the case. The order wasn’t available in docket no. 3:14-cv-00981, and the court clerk didn’t comment.
Section 230
Public Knowledge filed a joint brief on behalf of Google's case against Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood because “Section 230 is a critical part of letting us all communicate online,” said a PK spokeswoman Monday. Without that part of the Communications Act, it's “very easy for overbroad liability and procedural fishing expeditions to shut down intermediaries necessary for communication and encourage them to restrict and restrain their customers' communications even more,” she said. “We've criticized Google's restrictions of customer communications in the past -- restrictions put in place due to pressures applied in the absence of protections like section 230.” That responded to accusations by David Lowery, a music business lecturer at the University of Georgia and a songwriter, that PK is among many advocacy groups serving the exclusive interests of Google (see 1502020047).
Supporters of Google's case against Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood want to ensure the viability of Communications Act Section 230, they said in interviews and statements Monday. But Google’s critics said the company and its allies are using disingenuous means to make a point about copyright where it doesn’t apply. CEA, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and Engine filed a joint brief on behalf of Google Friday, a CEA news release Monday said. The Center for Democracy and Technology, Electronic Frontier Foundation, New America Foundation's Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge and R-Street Institute also filed a pro-Google brief Friday, an EFF news release said.
The Internet Association’s Thursday push for Congress to renew Trade Promotion Authority and to consider limitations and exceptions for copyright laws prompted applause and skepticism from music licensing and trade experts. IA released a report emphasizing the Internet’s key role in global trade and arranged for three small-business owners to meet with lawmakers to underline the “importance of including digital trade provisions in future trade legislation,” an IA news release said. IA championed Communications Act Section 230, which provides liability protections for Internet intermediaries, in the report. IA sent a letter to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees’ leadership Jan. 14 asking for TPA's passage and flexible copyright provisions (see 1501150052).
The Internet Association’s letter to the House Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees’ leadership Wednesday is an example of the tech industry’s growing influence in copyright debates, said pro-fair use experts in interviews Thursday. IA said copyright “limitations and exceptions” should be included in the Trade Promotion Authority legislation and asked for liability protections for Internet intermediaries. The association’s members include Amazon, Facebook, Google and PayPal.
The safe harbor protections of ISPs and free speech rights of consumers hang in the balance as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ full panel prepares to hear Garcia v. Google, said pro-Google briefs filed Tuesday and Wednesday. But a neutral brief by a group of law professors cautioned against overstating the threat of 9th Circuit's previous ruling by a three-judge panel (see 1407140071). Peter Menell, University of California-Berkeley law professor, and David Nimmer, a scholar at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology, were among those filing that brief. Oral argument is set for Dec. 15 in Pasadena, California, according to the court’s calendar.
Whether to repeal or maintain consent decrees loomed large in the second round of music licensing comments filed to the Copyright Office last week (http://1.usa.gov/1tIPlqs). Early copies of the comments, due Friday, were provided by broadcasters and artist attorneys and advocates. Music attorneys foresaw the eventual elimination of Copyright Act Section 115 in favor of direct deals, but the Future of Music Coalition (FMC) doubted whether such deals would be helpful to artists.
The FCC voted 3-2 Thursday to explore the potential of Internet fast lanes, as expected (CD May 15 p1). But Chairman Tom Wheeler wanted to make one point clear: Fast lanes for some will not mean slow lanes for others. “I don’t like the idea that the Internet could become divided into haves and have nots,” he said. “I will work to see that does not happen.” Wheeler said he wants rules in which, if an ISP slows speeds below what the consumer bought, “it would be commercially unreasonable and therefore prohibited.” Republican commissioners said net neutrality rules are a government solution in search of a problem.
"Like Godzilla, who arrives and destroys great human accomplishments,” some state and federal bills and laws are threatening the Internet’s future success, said NetChoice in a Thursday release on its annual list of the worst Internet laws. California’s SB 568 law, the federal e-commerce sales tax bill and numerous state-level digital descendant bills were on NetChoice’s most-destructive list at http://netchoice.org/iawful. NetChoice said California’s SB 568 law is particularly egregious, saying it violates federal law and the First Amendment. The law, which takes effect January 2015, is intended to make two major changes. First, websites and apps “directed” to minors will have to provide the option to registered minors to delete any publicly posted content. Second, those websites may no longer advertise items that minors legally cannot purchase. All other websites will have to take “reasonable actions in good faith” to avoid presenting ads for these restricted items to known minors. “This makes for a discriminatory law,” the report said. Section 230 of the federal Communications Decency Act protects websites from liability for content or commerce posted by users, according to the report. “Sites we use everyday could not exist without it,” said NetChoice Executive Director Steve DelBianco. By making these sites liable, the state law not only violates federal law, but also “violates the First Amendment by chilling advertisers’ free speech,” the report said. “SB 568 represents a major threat to the use of the Internet and snubs the federal protections that allowed e-commerce to flourish."
The Communications and Technology Task Force unanimously approved a resolution to oppose intermediary liability for Internet providers under the Communications Decency Act. The resolution was in response to a National Association of Attorneys General letter asking Congress to change Section 230 of the CDA to open Internet providers to possible liability, said John Stephenson, task force director. The resolution next goes to the American Legislative Exchange Council board. The task force plans to discuss interconnection agreements more in the upcoming months through presentations and panel discussions, said Stephenson in an interview. The resolution was approved at last week’s ALEC conference in Chicago.