Maryland Legislation Would Protect Employee and Job Applicant Social Media Privacy Rights

The state of Maryland continues to lead the way regarding social media and the law. Whether its creating social media election authority regulations or seminal case law on social media evidence authentication I am proud to say that my home state's elected leaders and judiciary have set the benchmark for the rest of the country to follow regarding social media and the law.

During this year's legislative session, Maryland Senate Bill 433 and House Bill 964 were introduced and if passed they will prohibit employers from requiring employees and applicants from disclosing their social media user names and passwords.

According to the synopsis on the Maryland Legislature's website of Senate Bill 433 it states:

Labor and Employment – User Name and Password Privacy Protection and Exclusions

"FOR the purpose of prohibiting an employer from requesting or requiring that an employee or applicant disclose any user name, password, or other means for accessing a personal account or service through certain electronic communications devices; prohibiting an employer from taking, or threatening to take, certain disciplinary actions for an employee’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information; prohibiting an employer from failing or refusing to hire an applicant as a result of the applicant’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information..."

According to the synopsis on the Maryland Legislature's website of House Bill 964 it states:

Labor and Employment – User Name and Password Privacy Protection

"FOR the purpose of prohibiting an employer from requesting or requiring that an employee or applicant disclose any user name, password, or other means for accessing a personal account or service through certain electronic communications devices; prohibiting an employer from taking, or threatening to take, certain disciplinary actions for an employee’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information; prohibiting an employer from failing or refusing to hire an applicant as a result of the applicant’s refusal to disclose certain password and related information..."

The legislation is a win-win for employers, employees, and taxpayers. The bills are designed to protect employee privacy while still enabling the securities and other regulated industries to comply with their strict compliance regulations. 

I encourage everyone who reads this to reach out to Maryland's legislators to voice support for these bills and to lobby your state legislatures to pass similar legislation. These bills are a win for employers, employees, and taxpayers.

(Full Disclosure: I am not being paid for my work on this legislation. I believe that privacy rights still matter in the Social Media Age and I want to protect employers, employees, and taxpayers from unforeseen legal issues that may arise if these practices continue. Therefore, I have been in constant contact with Maryland Senator Ronald Young and Maryland Delegate Shawn Tarrant to work with them to create a common sense solution to this problem that protects the interests of employers, employees, and taxpayers.)

To learn how social media intersects with the law you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Disconnecting From Social Media in 2012

Disconnecting from social media may help one realize that there is more to life than Facebook posting, Tweeting, Google plussing, etc... On Wednesday January 4, 2012, I discussed some of these issues with Washington, DC's Fox 5 News morning Co-Anchor Tony Perkins.

Disconnecting from Technology in 2012: MyFoxDC.com

Life is more fun in the real world than in the virtual world.

To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Social Media Law Predictions For 2011

Reading the tea leaves and advising clients is what lawyers are paid to do. 2010 was the coming out party for social media and social media law. With the release of the movie "The Social Network" and Facebook surpassing Google in several different web traffic metrics, social media and the practice of social media law has finally come of age. In no particular order, below are some of my social media law predictions for 2011:
1. Employers will continue to grapple with where to draw the line regarding employee social media use.
2. More courts will address social media usage in their instructions to juries and there will be more e-discovery related social media matters.
3. The judicial system, bar associations, and bar counsels will work to find a common sense approach regarding how lawyers, judges, and clients may or may not interact with other other on social media.
4. Intellectual property law will be updated to better protect copyright owners.
5. The Federal Election Commission and state election boards will update their rules to address social media usage by political candidates.
6. Regulated industries such as banking and finance, pharma, etc...will continue refining their approach to regulating social media usage.
7. Federal and state governments will determine what official government social media records need to be retained.
8. Homeland Security, the CIA, FBI, NSA, U.S. Armed Forces, etc... will need re-evaluate their social media policies and determine what they allow their employees to post online.
9. Cyberbulling, Privacy, Defamation, and First Amendment issues will become further intertwined and a rational legal framework will need to be created to address these matters.
10. Social Media Credential Fraud will continue to increase as more people will try to create the perception that they are experts in their professional field due to their social media activity.

To learn more about my social media law predictions you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

New York Jets' Rex Ryan Needs to Take His Feet Out of His Mouth and Address Foot-Fetish Gate

The New York Jets' Rex Ryan needs to take his feet out of his mouth. Usually, when you hear the saying that someone has their foot in their mouth it means that they are saying things that are not very intelligent. However, in this instance, Ryan has figuratively put both of his feet in his mouth to intentionally avoid addressing what will become known as Foot-Fetish Gate.

According to Deadspin.com, a woman who looks very similar to Ryan's wife Michelle has been posting videos onto YouTube about feet fetishes. In addition, if you listen to one of the videos posted the voice sounds similar to Ryan's. The YouTube account ("ihavepretty feet") that originally contained these videos was so popular that YouTube allegedly terminated the account for terms of service violations.

Foot-Fetish Gate was on the Cover of today's New York Daily News. According to NJ.com, when Ryan was asked about the videos in a press conference today he stated, "This is a personal matter and I'm not going to discuss it. This is a personal matter, I hope you can respect the fact I don't want to discuss it."

Ryan should have followed the way Dave Letterman handled his social media situation when Letterman was blackmailed about his personal conduct last year. On December 2, 2009, I blogged about how well Letterman handled his social media crisis and stated that Tiger Woods should follow David Letterman's social media crisis playbook. David Letterman came out publicly very quickly on his show and admitted what had happened. Letterman's honest response made the story die very early in the news cycle with no apparent professional consequences.

In contrast, Tiger Woods for months refused to address his personal problems that became public soon after Thanksgiving 2009. Woods' handling of his social media crisis has derailed his career, cost him millions in sponsorship dollars and destroyed his marriage. The final chapter on Brett Favre's sexting scandal has not been written yet so it is too early to properly review his social media crisis response.

From the facts I have seen so far, it does not appear that Rex Ryan or his wife have engaged in any activity that could cause him legal problems. Therefore, I would advise Rex Ryan to come clean and make this a non-story quickly. Ryan may want to take a page from Hugh Grant's personal incident from 15 years ago when Grant was caught with a hooker. Grant did the talk show circuit and made light of the matter. Grant's career did not suffer because he apologized and acted sincere and audiences have embraced him ever since. If you win football games people generally don't care what you do in your spare time. Even then, the U.S. is a very forgiving country. For example, Michael Vick has resurrected his career due to his recent on the field play and his positive contributions to his surrounding community.

Since Ryan and his wife may only be guilty of poor decision making he should do a 180 as soon as possible and give a press conference that honestly addresses Foot-Fetish Gate before this weekend's NFL games begin. Nobody cares what Ryan and his wife do in their spare time as long as the Jets win. However, if the Jets lose this Sunday and don't make or go far in the playoffs Ryan and/or his wife's off the field activities may be further questioned. Personally, I can't wait to see and hear what the Chicago Bear fans will say to Ryan at this weekend's game. Are you ready for some football?

To learn how to properly handle a social media crisis you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

UK approves Tweeting in the Court Room During Assange Bail Hearing

You have to give credit to Julian Assange where credit is due. His name and his organization WikiLeaks strikes fear in every government and large corporation throughout the world. He has the ability to destroy international relationships and expose secrets with a simple keystroke. Due to Assange's creation, no "For Your Eyes Only" document is safe from "inquiring minds."

So far, Wikileaks' infamous document releases have been a big disappointment to me. Reading how U.S. diplomats view leaders from around the world is boring. I want WikiLeaks to release its documents on Bigfoot, the incident at Roswell, New Mexico in 1947, and its information on the Warren Commission. I want to know if Lee Harvey Oswald was the only person involved with President Kennedy's assassination.

Despite WikiLeaks major shortcomings, we can thank Assange's actions and current celebrity for a UK court's acceptance of the usage of Twitter during a court room proceeding. Howard Riddle, the Chief Magistrate presiding over Assange's bail hearing was asked and provided permission to a reporter that he could send Tweets if it is done quietly and does not disturb the court. Therefore, it appears that mircoblogging during a trial by reporters may be acceptable in the UK.

As of this writing, the US does not have a uniform rule on microblogging by reporters during trial. In a recent high profile trial in Chesire, Conn a defendant is using as part of his basis for appeal that Tweeting during trial created a "circus atmosphere." So far this argument has fallen on deaf ears. However, until there is uniformity throughout the US this argument may succeed in some jurisdictions.

In my opinion, up until this point in time,WikiLeaks' major contribution is that it has assisted a UK court in deciding that Tweeting during a judicial proceeding is acceptable. Only after WikiLeaks uploads the documents that answer all of my questions regarding Area 51, the Roswell Incident, and the Bigfoot can I truly say that it has topped its biggest accomplishment to date which is having a UK jurist determine that Tweeting during a court proceeding is acceptable.

To learn more about how your legal rights may be affected by social media usage you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Does Google agree with my 1 day DMCA safe harbor definition of expeditiously?

According to the Associated Press, Google has stated that it will respond to complaints about pirated material within 24 hours after receiving notification. This announcement also states that Google will better police the sites that utilize its ad network to try to limit copyright violations. This long overdue announcement is great news for content creators.

On June 30, 2010, I stated that even though Viacom lost the initial round of the Viacom v. YouTube case, the case may be a win for copyright holders in the long run. I made my prediction because if YouTube was able to remove more than 100,000 infringing copyrighted clips within 1 business day of being notified more than three years ago, there is no reason why commercial entities shouldn't be held to this standard today.

Google's new 24 hour policy is welcome news because content creators have lost billions of dollars to intentional copyright infringement over the past ten years. Google also needs to enact this policy for trademark infringement. I am waiting for Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, etc... to agree to the same policy for not just copyright infringement but also for trademark infringement. Only after these companies actively enforce a 24 hour turnaround for intellectual property infringement may they claim they are actively protecting content creators.

I challenge Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and every other social media company to follow Google's lead in protecting intellectual property.

To learn how to protect and monetize your intellectual property you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

USPTO's Inquiry on Copyright Policy in the Internet Economy Comments Due on 11/19/10

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Internet Policy Task Force is reviewing how copyright law should evolve to balance the needs of content creators and users in the Social Media Age. Since the original Napster came on the scene in 1999, copyright protection has become more difficult for rights holders. Napster's technology created the first widely distributed peer to peer file sharing system that enabled its users to easily share MP3 files. Napster and its progeny such as Limewire (which was shut down a few weeks ago) allowed consumers to download/share music for free. If you were an artist, content creator, or content owner such as a musician, publishing house, record label, movie studio, author, etc... peer to peer file sharing changed your business model almost overnight and made it more difficult to profit from your copyrighted work.

Therefore, those parties that are interested in affecting government policy on copyright protection in the Social Media Age have until November 19, 2010 to file comments about how copyright law should evolve. To file comments electronically you may e-mail them to: copyrightnoi-2010@ntia.doc.gov.

To learn more about copyright protection in the Social Media Age you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved

Will The FEC Regulate Social Media For the 2012 Election Cycle?

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) may need to regulate the use of social media for the 2012 election cycle. As I have repeated time and time again, I am not in favor of the government regulating every nook and cranny of our existance. However, this is not 1999 and we are no longer in the Internet Age. We are in the Social Media Age.

The Internet Age was about emailing and surfing the web. The Social Media Age is about conversation, engagement, and user generated content. Think Facebook, MySpace, Twitter,YouTube, and Foursquare for starters.

Under the FEC's October 2006 Special Notices on Political Ads and Soliticitations, public communications are:
•Broadcast, cable or satellite transmission;
•Newspaper;
•Magazine;
•Outdoor advertising facility (e.g., billboard);
•Mass mailing (defined as more than 500 pieces of mail matter of an identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period);
•Telephone banks (defined as more than 500 telephone calls of an identical or substantially similar nature within any 30-day period); or
•Any other general public political advertising. General public political advertising does not include Internet ads, except for communications placed for a fee on another person’s web site

Even though the FEC Internet and Communications Activity regulations were updated in June 2007 and appear to cover most Internet activity due to the language, "and any other form of communication distributed over the Internet", they were created before the widespread use of social media for political campaigns. (See page 64 of the Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for the Internet Communications Rulemaking). Therefore, I believe the time is right for the regulations to be updated again to reflect changes in technology. As the 2008 Presidential Election first demonstrated, social media has the power to elect a President and change the course of history due to its viral nature.

Until the widespread use of the Internet in the U.S. in the late 1990's, people obtained most of their information from television and print. In my opinion, some people already obtain most of their information from social media and this number will increase in the future. Since television, radio, and print election advertising generally has some type of disclosure requirement, I do not believe it would be burdensome to require disclosure requirements for a federal candidate's official campaign social media pages and accounts since social media is being used to advertise to potential voters. This requirement would ensure that voters know that a social media account is the actual candidate's and not a fake page. I am not in favor of the FEC creating new guidelines that may hamper free speech or make it economically burdensome or administratively difficult for candidates to utilize social media.

Earlier this year, the State of Maryland created model social media election regulations that may be easily adopted by other states for state elections and by the FEC for federal elections. I assisted the State of Maryland in drafting these regulations and input was received from Facebook, Yahoo!, AOL, and Google. Since Maryland's regulations received input from the social media industry and a social media lawyer, the final regulations were passed with near unanimous support.

In my opinion, social media will never replace personal candidate-voter interaction. However, social media adds another method to connect with voters that print and television communication does not. Therefore, due to the growing usage of social media the FEC should create social media election regulations based upon Maryland's model for the 2012 campaign cycle. I would be happy to provide assistance to the FEC when they are ready to draft federal social media election regulations.

To learn how to properly utilize social media for state and/or federal elections you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Facebook's New Group Tools Should Be Opt-In

Facebook recently launced a new tool called Groups that enables users to create mini social networks within a Facebook user's list of friends. According to the Wall Street Journal, "Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg said the impetus for groups was to make communicating with your friends on Facebook more like talking with them in the real world."

Facebook Groups was created not to mimic real world communication but to better enable Facebook to monetize your personal data. Many Facebook users have hundreds of Facebook Friends. However, Facebook does not know what a user's true relationship is with each of its Facebook friends. A user's Facebook Friends may include: high school friends, college friends, graduate school friends, co-workers, family members, strangers, associates, significant others, ex-friends, ex-significant others, etc...

According to a recent PC Magazine article, a Facebook spokesperson stated "[w]e made the decision to allow Group members to add others to the Group in order to make the product simple, and because it resembles something we all understand: adding one of your contacts to an e-mail thread." An e-mail thread may be more analagous to unsolicited junk mail (snail or email) than a real group. In addition, opting-in instead of opting out would have made the product simple for users because opting out forces users to take steps that are not user friendly.

If Facebook wanted to make its new Groups feature mimic real world communication it would have enabled users to individually opt-into Groups instead of making users opt-out. Making users opt-out instead of opt-in has the potential to create some unintended legal issues for some of its users. For example, what if a boss or family member or friend reviews a Group page and found out you were a member of a Group that had some sort of stigma?

In my opinion, Facebook made groups opt-out instead of opt-in to better collect and then sell your personal data to marketers. Facebook is on a furious pace to monetize its users' data to demonstrate to prospective bidders for its future IPO Facebook's monetary potential. If Facebook cares about its users' privacy it will change its Group's feature to be opt-in instead of opt-out. When was the last time you had to opt-out of going to dinner with a real group of friends? To go out with a real group of friends you must opt-in. Therefore, I challenge Facebook to correct this major oversight to its new Group tool.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Protecting Your Social Media Profile Against Text Spam

On April 29, 2010, I stated why the Social Media Privacy Protection Act is needed. I reiterated my position again on July 25, 2010. I did not wake up thinking about privacy issues. However, when I logged into my Google account this morning, I received the message, "What would happen if you lost access to your Google Account tomorrow?" The screen listed my email address and requested my cell phone number in case I need to reset my password.

In my opinion, password resets via cell phone SMS is a ruse to obtain access to your cell phone number so the number may be used at a later date to perform mobile marketing. Social Media companies are trying to collect as much information about their users as possible because they are building a monetizable data bank. As the Brits may say, "brilliant."

Google may argue that a cell phone number is the easiest and most secure way for a consumer to obtain a password reset. I disagree. The best way to do this is via email and/or a personal security question. Google recently fired an employee for accessing the personal accounts of its users. Just think of all the possibilities when private companies (not the government-whole different conversation) have access to this type of personal information.

Social Media companies are trying to entice their users to turn over as much of their personal information as possible. Unfortunately, too many consumers are freely providing Social Media companies their information without a second thought. For example, there is no reason for any company to ask for or for anyone to list their religion on their social media profile.

When I recently tried assisting a friend of mine with obtaining a personal URL for his Facebook account it requested a cell phone number for confirmation. When I obtained my personal URL soon after consumers were allowed to do so I did not need to provide a cell phone number. Social Media companies want your cell phone number so they can monetize this information.

The bottom line is that people need to be careful about providing any data to third parties. Do you really want to be bombarded at some point in the future with spam text messages that you will have to pay for? Therefore, unless a company needs your cell phone number do not provide it.

To learn how to protect your Social Media Profile you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Facebook is a Trademark Protection Hypocrite

Facebook is the 800 pound gorilla of social media and it is doing everything in its power to stay the Big Man in Social Media (BMISM) (akin to the Big Man on Campus-BMOC). These actions include protecting its intellectual property through litigation.

Therefore, I find it rather hypocritical that Facebook is suing a company calling itself Teachbook.com and claiming that Teachbook.com is misappropriating the distinctive "BOOK" portion of Facebook's trademark. I believe that Facebook filed this lawsuit because it believes if it doesn't try to stop Teachbook.com from utilizing "BOOK" in its name other companies may try to utilize the term "BOOK" in their name and perform social networking. Facebook is not the first company to do social networking and it will not be the last company to do so. However, Facebook is doing social networking better than anyone else at this point.

Under Facebook's logic, Redbook magazine may want to look into suing Facebook for trademark infringement because Redbook has a stronger claim to the word "BOOK" than does Facebook. Redbook has been around for about 100 years longer than Facebook. In addition, it appears that Redbook has had an online presence longer than Facebook and has had an online community of users longer than Facebook. In addition, some of Redbook's users are the same type of users who may also utilize Facebook. Therefore, Redbook may have as strong of a claim against Facebook as Facebook does against Teachbook.com

It is extremely hypocritical for Facebook to claim that others are infringing on its own mark when Facebook freely allows and enables its users to infringe on the trademarks of others. Facebook knows or should know that its platform is rife with trademark infringement. Since football season is upon us, I will use the NFL as an example of how Facebook is enabling trademark infringement on its own web site. When you log into Facebook and type in "NFL" you will see a large number of users utilizing the NFL's marks without the NFL's permission. In turn, Facebook is monetizing this infringement by the advertising on its web site. Therefore, Facebook does not have any incentive to stop trademark infringement on its web site because it is profiting from the massive trademark infringement that its platform enables.

Under current trademark law, Facebook is not under any obligation to remove an infringing mark until it is notified by a rights holder of the alleged infringement. Facebook does have a mechanism in place for intellectual property rights holders to notify them of infringing material. However, Facebook should do more to protect trademark owners. Until Facebook adequately addresses trademark infringement on its own web site, it should not accuse others of trademark infringement. Remember the old saying, "people in glass houses should not throw stones?" It appears that Facebook doesn't believe in this saying because Facebook is acting like a trademark protection hypocrite.

To learn how to protect your trademarks on the Internet and on Social Media you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Library of Congress Announces New DMCA Rules Exemptions

Since the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) was passed in 1998, the Library of Congress ("LOC") has been tasked with the duty to review the law to determine if there should be any classes of works that may be exempted from the DMCA. On July 26, 2010, the Library of Congress announced new DMCA Section 1201 Rules for Exemptions Regarding Circumvention of Access-Control Technologies. Six classes of works were added.

This was the fourth time that the LOC reviewed the DMCA to update it. In this review, the LOC decided to allow for the bypassing of DVD Content Scramble System encryption, permitting users to jailbreak their iPhone, enabling e-books to be read out loud by their computers.

Digital Rights Management circumvention is now allowed for the following six classes of works:

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;

(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos

(2) Computer programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:

(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

In general, the exemptions appear to be pro-consumer or the "little guy." For example, the DVD circumvention exemption may assist documentary film makers and others who want to utilize small clips of copyrighted material for their work. The updated rules on jailbreaking mobile phones may enable consumers to utilize their purchases on the platforms they desire. The bottom line is that for at least the next three years these exemptions will be the law of the land.

To learn how copyright law may affect your business you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

The DMCA's Safe Harbor May Only Provide Commercial Entities a One Business Day Grace Period to Remove Infringing Content

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) does not state how long an Internet Service Provider (ISP)/Online Service Provider (OSP) has to respond to a claim of copyright infringement. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, "[u]pon receipt of a compliant notification of claimed infringement, a service provider must respond expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of the infringing activity, if the service provider seeks to receive the benefits of the limitations of liability contained in § 512(c)".

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, defines expeditiously to mean "marked by or acting with prompt efficiency." According to Wikipedia's entry for the "Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act, "[f]or a commercially run on-line provider taking action within the hour to tell a customer that a takedown notice has been received and informing them that they must immediately remove the content and confirm removal, giving them six to twelve hours to comply; and otherwise informing them that the content will be taken down or their Internet connection terminated, may be considered reasonable."

There is no controlling case law that provides black letter law regarding the DMCA's definition of expeditiously. However, it was noted in Viacom Int'l Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., 07 Civ. 2103 (LLS) (S.D.N.Y. June 23, 2010) that when YouTube received from Viacom one mass take-down notice for 100,000 videos within one business day almost all of the infringing content was removed. Viacom's take-down notice was sent on February 2, 2007, which is more than three and half years ago. Since this mass take-down, advances in technology have made it easier to detect and remove infringing content.

Since YouTube, a commercial entity, had the resources to remove allegedly infringing content within one business day more than three and a half years ago, it is not onerous for commercial entities to abide by a one business day rule today. At first glance, it may sound onerous for a web site to be forced to remove allegedly infringing content within one business day. However, in a matter of hours a popular movie, book, or other original work may be downloaded hundreds of thousands of times. These downloads may cause serious irreparable financial harm to copyright holders.

According to the Senate Report about the DMCA (S. Rep. 105-190 at 44), "[b]ecause the factual circumstances and technical parameters may vary from case to case, it is not possible to identify a uniform time limit for expeditious action." In my opinion, this indicates that a non-profit may be held to a different less onerous standard than a commercial entity. Since S. Rep 105-190 was created, technology has drastically changed and I do not believe it was the intent of the Senate to provide ISPs/OSPs wide latitude to remove infringing content at their leisure when even a minor delay in removal may cause serious financial repercussions to rights holders.

The DMCA's safe harbor provision is already tilted heavily in favor of ISPs/OSPs. Therefore, to level the playing field it is time for either Congress or the courts to declare that under the DMCA commercial entities have one business day to remove infringing content.

To learn more about protecting and monetizing your online content you may contact me at http://www.shearlaw.com/.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

The Social Media Privacy Protection Act Part II

On April 29, 2010, I blogged that the Social Media Privacy Protection is in the works. This bill has not yet been passed; however, I think this type of legislation will eventually be enacted because up until this point the online business community has not done enough to police itself.

On July 22, 2010, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection held a hearing regarding how online service providers handle user information. During the session, online industry leaders asked Congress to act in a manner that will be flexible enough to address the rapid advances in digital media. On July 27, 2010, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation will have a full committee hearing on consumer online privacy. Representatives from Apple, Facebook, Google, and AT&T are scheduled to testify.

Capital Hill's interest in electronic media privacy issues has made the online business community realize that it must do a better job of being proactive than reactive to privacy issues. Unfortunately, it has taken the threat of congressional action for Internet service providers and online service providers to realize that consumers still highly value their privacy.

I believe these hearings are long overdue. However, I think it would be a mistake for Congress to overreact and draft legislation that hampers innovation. Therefore, if Congress decides to act I hope it is in a manner that offers consumers and businesses the privacy they desire without harming the online community's ability to create cutting edge technological advances.

To learn more about online privacy issues and how to monetize your social media assets you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC.  All rights reserved.