Page Not Found - DMCA Defender


California man who ran UGotPosted.com charged in revenge porn case

(YAHOO) -LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California man was arrested on Tuesday on accusations he ran a “revenge porn” website, one that featured nude pictures of women often posted by jilted or angry ex-lovers, officials said.

The San Diego arrest, the latest action by the state to crack down on such websites, comes after California Governor Jerry Brown signed a first-in-the-nation law in October specifically targeting revenge porn.

The law defines revenge porn as the posting of private, explicit photos of other people on the Internet to humiliate them.

But authorities did not charge 27-year-old Kevin Bollaert under that law, because it is geared to those who post the incriminating pictures and not those who run websites that feature them, said Nicholas Pacilio, spokesman for the state Attorney General’s Office.

Bollaert’s site, which is no longer operational, had featured over 10,000 sexually explicit photos, and he charged women up to $350 each to remove their photos, officials said. The site was not the largest revenge porn website, but it had photos of people from across the country, Pacilio said.

Bollaert was charged under a California identity theft law that prohibits using identifying information of a person without their permission, and under anti-extortion legislation, according to court documents.

Unlike many other revenge porn websites, Bollaert’s site had required users post the photo subject’s full name, location, age and a link to the person’s Facebook profile, the Attorney General’s Office said in a statement.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris said in a statement the site had turned the public humiliation and betrayal of people whose photos were posted “into a commodity.”

In all, Bollaert faces 31 felony counts of conspiracy, identity theft and extortion and could be sent to prison for up to 22 years if convicted on all counts, officials said. He is being held in San Diego jail on $50,000 bail.

An attorney for Bollaert did not return calls.

An arrest warrant affidavit said that when California investigators visited Bollaert in September, he told them he had taken down the website and that while it had been fun to run at first, he regretted it.

“I feel bad about the whole thing, and like I just don’t want to do it anymore. I mean, I know a lot of people are getting screwed over … Like, their lives are getting ruined,” Bollaert said, according to the affidavit.

He also told investigators he received 100 emails daily from people asking for photos of themselves to be removed, the document stated.

One woman whose photo was posted on the site by a former boyfriend told investigators she received emails, calls and lewd photos from people wanting to “hook up” and feared for her safety. Other women told investigators the photos were not posted to the site by an ex-lover but by someone else.

The phenomenon of revenge porn has become so widespread it was featured this year as a story line on popular HBO series “The Newsroom.”

While the California revenge porn law is the first to specifically target the phenomenon, New Jersey has an older law that allows prosecution of such behavior, but it was passed as a cyberbullying statute not specifically aimed at revenge porn.

California man charged in ‘revenge porn’ case - Yahoo

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/california-man-arrested-running-39-revenge-porn-39-234710414.html

revenge porn - Google News

States Look to Ban Revenge Porn

A bill has been proposed in the lower house of the Virginia General Assembly that would crack down on a practice known as “revenge porn.” Revenge porn is commonly understood to be the posting of nude or pornographic images of a person without their knowledge or consent in order to humiliate them. The action is typically done as a form of vengeance against a former spouse or partner.

House Bill 49 was pre-filed Tuesday and set to be offered in January before the House of Delegates. If enacted, it will ban revenge porn and make “revenge porn” a Class 1 Misdemeanor.

“It is unlawful for any person, with the intent to cause substantial emotional distress to the depicted person, to disseminate or sell any videotape, photograph, film, or other video-graphic or still image created by any means, or any reproduction of such videotape, photograph, film, or image, that depicts another person who is totally nude, in a state of undress so as to expose the genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast, or engaged in sexual conduct,” reads the proposed HB 49 in part.

Patrick A. Trueman, president and CEO of the anti-pornography group Morality in Media, told The Christian Post that he and his organization “like the legislation.”

“No one should be allowed to distribute nudity without the consent of the person depicted,” said Trueman, who explained the difference between revenge porn and regular pornography.

“Revenge porn is different than other pornography in that consent to distribute is not given nor implied with such material, as it is with those who pose for pornography where the understanding, implied or contractual, is that the material will be made available to the public.”

H.B. 49 was introduced by Democratic Delegate-elect Marcus Simon, who was elected last month and will be replacing retiring Del. Jim Scott.

Simon’s bill bears a resemblance to legislation being proposed elsewhere in the country at the state level. Legislatures in Maryland, Florida, Wisconsin, New York and Texas are considering similar measures.

Support in the Commonwealth for H.B. 49 is not universal. Marc Montoni, secretary for the Libertarian Party of Virginia, told The Christian Post that he had many issues with the bill.

“The most obvious problem with a law like this is that it is too broad. Although it is advertised and ‘intended’ to address ‘revenge porn’, the language doesn’t really distinguish what is or isn’t ‘revenge porn’,” said Montoni.

“But on a more basic level, it interferes with freedom of speech… individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make.”

Montoni also told CP that he felt government should “assume people are adults and allow them to learn from their mistakes and otherwise take responsibility for their own behavior.”

“There are ways to minimize the problem. Government can mediate disputes over images by fairly enforcing and arbitrating contracts, when private mediators and arbitrators cannot bring the parties in a dispute to a resolution,” said Montoni.

“Nonprofit groups and educators can help by teaching youth on the possible consequences of sending graphic photos of themselves to friends.”

When asked by CP about the allegation that H.B. 49 and similar measures interfere with free speech, Trueman of Morality in Media replied that the “First Amendment does not protect all speech.”

“That is why we have laws prohibiting slander, libel, obscenity, etc. The U. S. concept of rights is one of ‘ordered liberty.’ We all have rights but in the exercise of those rights we cannot violate the greater rights of another,” said Trueman.

States Look to Ban Revenge Porn - Christian Post
revenge porn - Google News

Beastie Boys, ‘Girls’ Viral Video in Copyright Infringement Fight

Beastie Boys black and white L

This week, a toy company called Goldieblox ignited a chatterstorm with a video of three girls playing with a Rube Goldberg-type contraption and singing alternative lyrics to the Beastie Boys song “Girls.” Since the video went up on Monday, it has been viewed more than seven million times and fueled discussion about how to get young girls interested in pursuing scientific careers.

But apparently not everyone is thrilled with the viral video.

According to a lawsuit filed on Thursday by Goldieblox, “the Beastie Boys have now threatened GoldieBlox with copyright infringement. Lawyers for the Beastie Boys claim that the GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video is a copyright infringement, is not a fair use and that GoldieBlox’s unauthorized use of the Beastie Boys intellectual property is a ‘big problem’ that has a ‘very significant impact.’ ”

PHOTOS: Adam Yauch: The Beastie Boy’s Life and Career in Pictures

Goldieblox is now going to a California federal court to get declaratory relief that the video is not a copyright infringement. Read the complaint.

The plaintiff is a startup company focused on selling sophisticated toys for girls. The video makes the point that not all young females want pink ones and dream of being princesses.

One of the reasons why the video has captured the cultural imagination is its choice of music from the Beastie Boys, who it must be noted are still defending a copyright lawsuit alleging illegal sampling on the album Paul’s Boutique.

In the original song, the Beasties sang: “Girls — to do the dishes/ Girls — to clean up my room/ Girls — to do the laundry/ Girls — and in the bathroom/ Girls, that’s all I really want is girls.”

STORY: ‘Blurred Lines’ Lawsuit: Marvin Gaye Family Now Claims Robin Thicke Stole Two Songs  

The video replaces those lyrics with: “Girls — to build the spaceship/ Girls — to code the new app/ Girls — to grow up knowing/ That they can engineer that/ Girls. That’s all we really need is girls.”

Is that “fair use”? To answer the question, a judge will be looking at the four factors of fair use: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken and the effect of the use upon the potential market.

The first of these factors figures to raise a provocative discussion. On one hand, the video is commercial speech. It might have a larger message, but it was also intended to sell toys. (In fact, Goldieblox is said to be a finalist for an Intuit competition to make a Super Bowl commercial.) If using copyrighted works without license was as easy as making a social point, surely a lot of corporations would try to get away with that. Certainly some politicians have tried without success.

PHOTOS: Ringo Starr’s Never-Before-Seen Photos of The Beatles 

Then again, there’s no doubt that this particular advertisement has earned some cultural cachet, and thanks to the degrading lyrics of the original song, there was always opportunity to do something novel commenting on the predecessor.

According to the lawsuit, “GoldieBlox created its parody video with specific goals to make fun of the Beastie Boys song, and to further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes and to encourage young girls to engage in activities that challenge their intellect, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. The GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video has gone viral on the Internet and has been recognized by the press and the public as a parody and criticism of the original song.”

The lawsuit isn’t clear on who exactly made the legal threat and what was said.

A spokesperson for the Beastie Boys says, “there was no complaint filed, no demand letter — no demand, for that matter — when they sued Beastie Boys.”

UPDATE: On Monday, the band released a letter saying while it was “impressed by the creativity and the message” of the Goldieblox video, “make no mistake, your video is an advertisement that is designed to sell a product, and long ago, we made a conscious decision not to permit our music and/or name to be used in product ads… When we tried to simply ask how and why our song ‘Girls’ had been used in your ad without our permission, YOU sued US.”

Here’s the video. Satire or parody? Copyright infringement or fair use?

Beastie Boys, ‘Girls’ Viral Video in Copyright Infringement Fight - Hollywood Reporter

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/beastie-boys-girls-viral-video-659308

copyright infringement news - Google News

Revenge porn websites taking advantage of weak privacy laws

SEATTLE — She was a flattered college sophomore. He was a cute senior. Their flirtation lead to the exchange of pictures.

When she sent him some racy photos, he responded with racy photos of his own, showing off his privates.

“I was like, ‘Oh, an older guy, I’m interested’,” said Tea, a fictitious name we’ve given her because she wants to remain anonymous.

But then it got too much. She said she was repeatedly getting pictures of his privates multiple times a day. She said no more.

“I told him I do not appreciate this, I don’t want to sleep with you, I’m sorry but you have to stop,” Tea said.

His calls did stop, but others began. She got phone calls and text messages from random people.

That’s because the senior had posted her racy pictures on MyEx.com, what’s often called a revenge porn website. There are several on the internet and their business model is one of extortion.

“They were saying all the things I would do to you, there was a lot of grunting,” Tea said.

The senior had also posted her phone number with the comment, “Here you go, text her, Facebook her, whatever, give her Hell.”

Women and men are learning the hard way that a flirtatious nude or semi-nude photos can become featured material on a revenge porn website.

“It’s a form of humiliation and degradation,” said Candice Christensen, a Utah-based sex addiction therapist.

She said people who post revenge porn feel a deep sense of rejection when they don’t get what they want from the relationship.

“They are feeling powerless, and this is a way they feel power and control,” said Christensen, who believes posting revenge porn is a form of payback.

A 2012 Pew Research survey says 15-percent of all adults have received nude or nearly nude photos and videos of someone they know. That’s potential profits for revenge porn websites like MyEx.com, which charge upwards to $500 to remove the offending photos, if they ever do at all.

“You have a huge uphill battle,” said attorney Colette Vogele, co-founder of  Without My Consent , an organization helping victims of online harassment to navigate the legal system.

“We’ve learned that over time, there are avenues to justice through the legal system, but they are very limited, very challenging for victims,” Vogele said.

She said one reason is that revenge porn operators are very good at hiding their identities. According to Internet records, the MyEx.com website is hosted in the Netherlands, registered in Hong Kong and removal payments are sent to a company in the Philippines that repairs online reputations.

An email returned by the operator of that company says MyEx.com is client.

“Ultimately, its very, very difficult to remove the content from the sites,” says Vogele.

She says copyright and privacy laws provide some protection, but it gets extremely hard to enforce when website operations are overseas. The unfortunate reality for victims is whoever takes the picture owns the copyright, which can make it harder to take down even if the victim is the one naked in the photo.

There’s now a move in Washington State to change that.

In January of 2014, the House Technology & Economic Development Committee will be presented with a package of bills that include outlawing revenge porn websites and protecting the privacy of Washington State citizens.

“To have that type of picture out there, you’re part owner of that and you have the right to control what happens to that,” said Rep. Jim Morris who’s chairman of the committee.

Only California and New Jersey have laws similar to what will be proposed in Olympia.

“We want to simplify it so that people can request something be taken down,” Morris said.

He wants protection that says the poster can’t upload pictures considered racy by the average person without the consent of the person who is in the picture.

For Tea, it’s too late.

“When you Google my name it was like the first thing that came up,” she said.

She’s afraid an employer, a potential boyfriend, even her family will see the same thing.

“Having those pictures out there, it’s just, I don’t know what to do,” she said.

Revenge porn websites taking advantage of weak privacy laws - KOMO News

https://news.google.com/news/feeds?hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&q=revenge+porn&um=1&ie=UTF-8&output=rss

revenge porn - Google News

Beastie Boys Accuse Maker of ‘Girls’ Viral Video of Copyright Infringement

This week, a toy company called GoldieBlox ignited a chatterstorm with a video of three girls playing with a Rube Goldberg-type contraption and singing alternative lyrics to the Beastie Boys song “Girls.” Since the video went up on Monday, it has been viewed more than seven million times and fueled discussion about how to get young girls interested in pursuing scientific careers.

But apparently not everyone is thrilled with the viral video.

According to a lawsuit filed on Thursday by GoldieBlox, “the Beastie Boys have now threatened GoldieBlox with copyright infringement. Lawyers for the Beastie Boys claim that the GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video is a copyright infringement, is not a fair use and that GoldieBlox’s unauthorized use of the Beastie Boys intellectual property is a ‘big problem’ that has a ‘very significant impact.’”

Goldieblox is now going to a California federal court to get declaratory relief that the video is not a copyright infringement. Read the complaint.

The plaintiff is a startup company focused on selling sophisticated toys for girls. The video makes the point that not all young females want pink ones and dream of being princesses.

One of the reasons why the video has captured the cultural imagination is its choice of music from the Beastie Boys, who it must be noted are still defending a copyright lawsuit alleging illegal sampling on the album “Paul’s Boutique.”

In the original song, the Beasties sang: “Girls — to do the dishes/ Girls — to clean up my room/ Girls — to do the laundry/ Girls — and in the bathroom/ Girls, that’s all I really want is girls.”

The video replaces those lyrics with: “Girls — to build the spaceship/ Girls — to code the new app/ Girls — to grow up knowing/ That they can engineer that/ Girls. That’s all we really need is girls.”

Is that “fair use”? To answer the question, a judge will be looking at the four factors of fair use: the purpose and character of the use, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount and substantiality of the portion taken and the effect of the use upon the potential market.

The first of these factors figures to raise a provocative discussion. On one hand, the video is commercial speech. It might have a larger message, but it was also intended to sell toys. (In fact, Goldieblox is said to be a finalist for an Intuit competition to make a Super Bowl commercial.) If using copyrighted works without license was as easy as making a social point, surely a lot of corporations would try to get away with that. Certainly some politicians have tried without success.

Then again, there’s no doubt that this particular advertisement has earned some cultural cache, and thanks to the degrading lyrics of the original song, there was always opportunity to do something novel commenting on the predecessor.

According to the lawsuit, “GoldieBlox created its parody video with specific goals to make fun of the Beastie Boys song, and to further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes and to encourage young girls to engage in activities that challenge their intellect, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math. The GoldieBlox Girls Parody Video has gone viral on the Internet and has been recognized by the press and the public as a parody and criticism of the original song.”

Here’s the video. Satire or parody? Copyright infringement or fair use?

This article originally appeared at THR.com.

 

Beastie Boys Accuse Maker of ‘Girls’ Viral Video of Copyright Infringement - Billboard

http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/5800686/beastie-boys-accuse-maker-of-girls-viral-video-of-copyright-infringement

copyright infringement news - Google News

A push to make revenge porn illegal - Christian Science Monitor

ByAnne FlahertyAssociated Press /
November 16, 2021

Washington

Annmarie Chiarini’s long-distance boyfriend was goading her to pose nude. The pictures would be for his eyes only, Chiarini recalls him saying, because she was so beautiful and because he missed her so much. He promised, she said, they would be stored on a compact disc and hidden in his drawer.

Chiarini believed him — until they broke up and the CD was auctioned on eBay with a link emailed to her friends and family. Copies were later mailed to her son’s Catholic school kindergarten teacher and the department head at the college where Chiarini taught English. The images eventually wound up on a pornographic video-sharing site, earning 4,000 views in less than two weeks.

It’s called revenge porn, and it’s legal in everywhere in the United States but California and New Jersey. An increasing number of states are considering whether to make it illegal to post any sexually explicit image online without that person’s permission. But groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier Foundation say they worry such proposals run afoul of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects free speech.

“We generally don’t think that finding more ways to put people in prison for speech is a good thing,” said Adi Kamdar, an activist at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “A lot of times, these laws — if they aren’t narrowly focused enough — they can be interpreted too broadly.”

Chiarini, a single mother from Maryland, said the night her boyfriend said he was going to post the photos, she “called the police in an absolute panic and tried to explain what was going on. The police, she said, responded, “‘So?’”

In a particularly disturbing twist the revenge porn phenomenon, some of the sites appear to be running side businesses offering “reputation protection services”: Dump $500 into a PayPal account and maybe they will take down your photo.

Mary Anne Franks, a law professor at the University of Miami who is helping states draft revenge porn laws, argues that sharing a nude picture with another person implies limited consent similar to other business transactions.

“If you give your credit card to a waiter, you aren’t giving him permission to buy a yacht,” Franks said.

The precise scope of the problem is unclear because many victims never come forward or are frequently turned away by the police. Two of the most popular revenge sites have gone dark in recent years amid hacking allegations and a class-action lawsuit. But advocates estimate there are dozens of other sites that continue to post pornographic images without that person’s consent.

Law enforcement officials have been stumped on how to respond. Website operators aren’t liable for content provided by others, unless the images are child pornography. And anti-harassment and cyberstalking laws don’t apply unless the ex-partner threatens the victim or attempts repeated contact.

Chiarini says she remembers one police officer thumbing through a black book at his desk before finally shrugging his shoulders and telling her no crime had been committed.

Copyright protections, too, wouldn’t help because she wasn’t the one who took the photos. And even if she had, victim advocates say, most revenge sites routinely ignore “take-down” infringement complaints, knowing that the victims can’t go to the expense of pursuing further legal action.

Maryland Delegate Jon Cardin is among the latest of several state legislators to propose a new revenge porn law. His proposal would make it a felony to intentionally distribute sexually explicit digital images of another person without consent, punishable by up to five years in jail and a $25,000 fine.

The bill would exclude images deemed to have “public importance” — an exemption carved out in response to critics who say such laws would criminalize journalists who publish explicit photos. The legislation also wouldn’t hold liable anyone who links to a revenge posting.

Still absent from Cardin’s list of vocal supporters is the ACLU, one country’s most prominent civil liberties group. Its California office worked this fall to dilute similar legislation. That bill, signed last month by Gov. Jerry Brown, makes revenge porn a misdemeanor but contains a big loophole: It applies only to images captured by the partner, exempting self-portraits.

Lee Rowland, an ACLU staff attorney in New York, says self-portraits create a more complex question on the expectation of privacy because the subject shared the image willingly.

“We understand that revenge porn is destructive and that there are real victims from it,” said Rowland.

But she added: “I don’t think we’ve been convinced that criminal laws — new nonviolent crimes — are necessary or necessarily effective in dealing with revenge porn.”

As for Chiarini, Ebay and the video-sharing site that published her photos agreed to take them down immediately. Her son’s school didn’t kick out the family, although it insisted on keeping the disc of nude photos in a file. And Chiarini never lost her job. Chiarini has since been working with Jacobs’ Cyber Civil Rights Initiative, an advocacy group that targets online harassment issues, to raise awareness and help other victims.

“I hit my low, now it’s time to fight back,” said Chiarini. “I don’t want to feel that way ever again.”

Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Chiarini photo: A push to make ‘revenge porn’ illegal - Christian Science Monitor

https://news.google.com/news/

revenge porn - Google News

State lawmakers pass Internet privacy, revenge porn bills

Madison — The state would ban snooping in the Facebook accounts of job seekers and students and criminalize so-called revenge porn, under two Internet privacy bills passed by lawmakers Tuesday.

The Senate on Tuesday unanimously approved a bill to prohibit employers, landlords and colleges from pressuring job seekers, tenants or aspiring college athletes to turn over the passwords to their private social media or email accounts.

The bill, which has won respect from some business groups for its careful approach, would still allow employers and schools to look at applicants’ or students’ public postings on the Internet. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos (R-Rochester) said he was considering taking up the bill Thursday and Tom Evenson, a spokesman for Gov. Scott Walker, said the governor would sign it.

In other action Tuesday, the Assembly adopted a bill to protect people from having romantic images later used against them online. So-called revenge porn cases can occur when a jilted lover or other former intimate takes revenge by posting to the Internet nude or otherwise compromising images of his or her ex in an attempt to humiliate that person.

Evolving technology

The growth in the Internet and social media is prompting lawmakers around the country to rethink their laws to protect the privacy of their citizens. Rep. Melissa Sargent (D-Madison) said legislators are trying to keep up with rapidly evolving technology.

“That’s a big part of what we’re here for — to make sure we’re up to date and staying on top of changing technology,” Sargent said.

Since last year, dozens of legislatures have either passed or taken up social media legislation to prohibit groups such as employers from demanding that applicants let them see private information online.

The proposals have received bipartisan support in many of those states as well as Wisconsin, where the lead sponsors include Sargent, Rep. Garey Bies (R-Sister Bay) and Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend).

Concern over requests

Sargent has said she has heard directly from young constituents who have faced social media questions in employment applications and interviews. The employers weren’t just looking at the applicants’ public Facebook profile but asking to see information that was part of a private account that could normally be viewed only by the applicant and his or her approved friends.

Applicants were free to refuse the request but worried it could hurt their chances of getting the position in a tight labor market where good jobs are hard to find, Sargent said.

Employers in other states such as the Maryland Department of Corrections and the City of Bozeman, Mont., have asked for login information and passwords for Facebook on applications or asked employees to log in so the employer can look over their shoulder.

Bradley Shear, an attorney who has consulted on and advocated for social media legislation in other states, has said at least two dozen universities nationwide demand social media log-ins of their student athletes or require them to “friend” a coach so the universities can monitor the accounts for possible crimes or violations of NCAA rules. The practice is widespread enough that companies such as Varsity Monitor and UDiligence have sprouted up to handle this monitoring job for schools.

The legislation approved by the Senate doesn’t stop institutions from monitoring what employees or others post publicly using social media. Employers and others also could still regulate what employees do on their work computers and cellphones.

Among the other exceptions, employers could still investigate whether employees had transferred proprietary data to online accounts such as their email.

In exchange, the bill would make clear that employers and other groups don’t have a duty to check their employees’ personal email and other accounts and shouldn’t be held liable for not monitoring that private information.

Revenge Porn bills

Also Tuesday, the Assembly approved its bill criminalizing revenge porn, with supporters saying they wanted Wisconsin to become the third state to take that stand. The measure passed on a voice vote with little dissent.

The bill is meant to curb people from posting photos or videos of their former partners after a relationship goes sour. Once explicit images have been posted on the Internet, they can be all but impossible to remove because they are quickly copied and posted on an array of websites.

“Once it’s on the Internet, it’s there forever,” Vos said. “You can’t really take it back.”

California and New Jersey are the only states to ban revenge porn, said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. John Spiros (R-Marshfield). New Jersey’s ban has been on the books for about a decade, while California recently passed its law.

“We’re trying to head this off,” Spiros said.

Some Democrats raised concerns the measure would not withstand court challenge. They wanted to alter the bill to include a requirement that someone who distributes material intentionally be held criminally liable. Republicans rejected that idea.

Currently, it is against the law to take a picture or video of a person in the nude without their consent.

But there is no prohibition against distributing those photos and videos once they’ve been taken.

The bill toughens the law to make it a misdemeanor to reproduce or distribute photos or video of someone who is nude or engaged in sexually explicit behavior without that person’s consent. Those who do so could be fined up to $10,000 and jailed for up to nine months.

There are exceptions for law enforcement officers, for people who reproduce such photos to report on a crime or assist with the investigation of a crime, for news media and for adults who distribute pictures of their minor children that are otherwise legal.

The bill now goes to the Senate.

Education measures

In other action Tuesday, the Senate approved on voice votes two education bills to increase the number of high school math and science credits required for graduation and to give districts more flexibility to contract out for substitute teachers and paraprofessionals to work with special education students. The bills now go to the Assembly.

Currently, Wisconsin has some of the lowest graduation requirements in the country, mandating that students need only two years of math and two years of science to get a diploma. By comparison, students need four years of English to graduate. Many other states require at least three years of science and some require four years of math.

According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 45% of districts require more than the state minimum credit requirements in math; only 37% require more than the state’s minimum credit requirements in science.

“Based on college remediation rates and what we hear from employers, too many of our students are not graduating high school with an expected mastery of math and science concepts,” said Jennifer Kammerud, a lobbyist for the DPI, who testified in support of the bill.

The second bill makes the cost of contracting for a substitute teacher or paraprofessional for special education services eligible for state special education aid, which could free up resources for other students, according to Disability Rights Wisconsin.

Erin Richards of the Journal Sentinel staff contributed to this article.

State lawmakers pass Internet privacy, ‘revenge porn’ bills - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

https://news.google.com/news/feeds

revenge porn - Google News

Marvin Gaye’s Kids Sue Robin Thicke

(Newser)


As expected, Marvin Gaye’s family is suing Robin Thicke over his hit song, “Blurred Lines.” Thicke pre-emptively (and “reluctantly”) sued Gaye’s family to protect the song after they alleged it was too similar to Gaye’s “Got to Give It Up,” and now two of Gaye’s kids are suing Thicke and his collaborators. They’re accusing Thicke of copyright infringement, the AP reports. The suit also claims Thicke used Gaye’s “After the Dance” in Thicke’s song “Love After War,” and accuses EMI of trying to intimidate Gaye’s family into not pursuing legal action, among other things.

 

Priceless statement from EMI parent Sony/ATV Music Publishing: “We have repeatedly advised the Gaye family’s attorney that the two songs in question have been evaluated by a leading musicologist who concluded that ‘Blurred Lines’ does not infringe ‘Got To Give It Up.”

 

Source Article from http://www.newser.com/story/176835/marvin-gayes-kids-sue-robin-thicke.html
Marvin Gaye’s Kids Sue Robin Thicke

http://www.newser.com/story/176835/marvin-gayes-kids-sue-robin-thicke.html

copyright infringement news stories on Newser
Read more copyright infringement stories on Newser

Cardin Proposes Criminalization of Revenge Porn - Daily Record

By:

Cardin-Jon_webSpurned lovers in Maryland beware: Posting sexually explicit photos and videos of your ex – revenge porn – could land you in jail if one state lawmaker has his way.Del. Jon Cardin, D-Baltimore County, is expected to announce on Wednesday that he is sponsoring a bill to make the non-consensual release of sexually explicit photographs and videos a felony in Maryland. Cardin, running for Maryland attorney general, said the proposed law would be the first of its kind in the state.Laws regarding revenge porn are not new, but are gaining wide attention.

Similar legislation was proposed this month in New York by a state senator and state assemblyman, according to the Madison County Courier.

New Jersey passed a law in 2004 that prohibits the dissemination of sexually explicit photos and video without the consent of both partners, according to the New York Times.

California Gov. Jerry Brown, a Democrat, this month signed a law that makes the practice of distributing sexually explicit images of ex-significant-others punishable by six months of jail time and a $1,000 fine, according to CNN.

Critics say California’s law doesn’t go far enough because it exempts self-portraits, also called “selfies,” and prosecutors must prove an intent to cause “serious emotional distress” by the person who distributed the material, according to Forbes.

Cardin Proposes Criminalization of Revenge Porn - Daily Record

https://news.google.com/news/feeds?hl=en&gl=us&authuser=0&q=revenge+porn&um=1&ie=UTF-8&output=rss

revenge porn - Google News

IsoHunt to Shut Down Following $110 Million Settlement with Film Studios

Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung
By Sam Callahan – Edited by Jennifer Wong

Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, No. CV-06-05578SVW(JCx) (C.D. Cal. Filed Sept. 26, 2006)
Proposed Settlement (hosted by Wired)

Gary Fung, operator of the popular file-sharing website isoHunt.com, has agreed to pay $110 million in damages and will permanently shut down his site in order to settle a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by six major film studios. Stipulation and Proposed Settlement, Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, No. 2:06-cv-05578SVW(JCx) (C.D. Cal Oct. 17, 2013). The settlement comes after more than seven years of litigation with the Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”), which represents the studios—Columbia Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, and Disney among others.

Claiming more than 44 million users and indexing over 13 million active BitTorrent files, isoHunt was the fourth most popular website of its kind. Other file-sharing sites operated by Fung, including the popular TorrentBox.com, will also shut down as a result of the settlement.

Prior to the recent settlement, two federal courts had ruled against Fung in the lawsuit, first brought in 2006. The United States District Court for the Central District of California found Fung liable for copyright infringement in 2009, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the relevant parts of that holding in March. Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Fung, 710 F.3d 1020 (9th Cir. 2013).

The settlement was announced in an official statement from the MPAA. Wired and CNET also report on the recent settlement. A Washington Post blog comments favorably on the outcome, while Techdirt criticizes the settlement’s “bogus” damages value. Patently-O discusses the Ninth Circuit decision preceding the settlement.

The Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that Fung had induced his isoHunt users to share copyrighted material in order to bolster the site’s traffic and increase advertising revenue. Columbia Pictures, 710 F.3d at 1042. In finding inducement, the court relied on the landmark copyright case Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005), in which Justice Souter first applied the “rule on inducement” to peer-to-peer file-sharing networks. Id. at 936. The Grokster court held “that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” Id. at 919.

According to the Ninth Circuit, Fung’s inducement consisted of “red flag knowledge” of his site’s copyright infringement, making him ineligible for protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (“DMCA”) “safe harbor” provision. Columbia Pictures, 710 F.3d at 1065. Under some circumstances, that provision protects service providers from liability for copyright infringement violations committed by their users. 17 U.S.C.A. § 512.

The inducement rule has been copyright holders’ key legal weapon in fighting websites like isoHunt. But its use is not without controversy. In an interview with Bloomberg Businessweek shortly after the Grokster ruling, Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Lessig said that the rule “increased the legal uncertainty around innovation substantially and created great opportunities to defeat legitimate competition.”

The $110 million damages imposed on isoHunt are significant but not astronomical in the context of file-sharing settlements. Peer-to-peer networks Grokster, BearShare, and Napster each paid over $25 million to settle claims against them. In 2011, the creator of file-sharing program LimeWire agreed to pay $105 million to settle a similar suit brought by thirteen large record companies, represented by the Recording Industry Association of America.

 

Source Article from http://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/jurisdiction/9th-circuit/isohunt-to-shut-down-following-110-million-settlement-with-film-studios?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=isohunt-to-shut-down-following-110-million-settlement-with-film-studios