“In its effort to uphold the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA), the U.S. Department of Justice is leaving no stone unturned. Its widely reported issuance of subpoenas to Internet search companies AOL, MSN, Google, and Yahoo is just the tip of the iceberg: The government has demanded information from at least 34 Internet service providers, search companies, and security software firms.

“Responding to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by InformationWeek, the Department of Justice disclosed that it has issued to subpoenas to a broad range of companies that includes AT&T, Comcast Cable, Cox Communications, EarthLink, LookSmart, SBC Communications (then separate from AT&T), Symantec, and Verizon.”

Thomas Claburn. Justice Department Subpoenas Reach Far Beyond Google. InformationWeek. March 29, 2006

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

This is a long-running dispute that is at least 25 years old, involving one of the most well-known companies in the music business and another company that has developed a digital downloaded music market that now accounts for 6 percent of all music sales.

Apple Corps Ltd. is a multimedia company whose main purpose is to manage the holdings of Apple Records, the Beatles’ record label since 1968. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer over use of the “Apple” name in 1981, four years after the computer company began business. That case settled in October 1991. According to Martin Schwimmer (editor of The Trademark Blog), Apple Computer paid $27 million to Apple Corps in settlement fees. Schwimmer also noted the computer company had to pay its own legal fees, as its insurer refused coverage.

In the confidential settlement, Apple Computer purportedly agreed to limit its use of the term “Apple” to computer products. (Key portions of the October 1991 settlement were published in a 2004 British court case, in which Apple Computer lost its attempt to remove the case from British courts based on lack of jurisdiction.)

Apple Computer launched its iTunes software and music store in spring 2003. Apple Corps sued Apple Computer in July 2003, claiming that iTunes violated the companies’ settlement. The current litigation, which started Wednesday in the High Court of Britain, arises from the 2003 lawsuit. Apple Corps alleges Apple Computer’s use of the “Apple” mark with the iTunes music store violates the parties’ 1991 settlement agreement.

Apple Corps has refused to make the Beatles’ music catalog available to any download service — including iTunes — even though rumors about digital distribution of the band’s catalog have swirled since 2004.

Martin Hickman. Apple vs Apple As The Beatles Take On Computer Giant. The Independent. March 30, 2006.

John Borland and Ina Fried. Apple vs. Apple: Perfect Harmony? News.com. Sept. 23, 2004.

John Borland. Beatles Catalog Headed For Digital Distribution? News.com. June 8, 2004.

High Court of Justice, Royal Courts of Justice. Approved Judgment: Apple Corps Limited and Apple Computer, Inc. April 7, 2004. (Court denies Apple Computer’s application to keep the case out of British courts on jurisdictional grounds.)

The Trademark Blog. While My Trademark Lawyer Gently Weeps. Sept. 15, 2003.

David Becker. Beatles Group Sues Apple Over Trademark. News.com. Sept. 12, 2003.

John Borland. Apple Unveils Music Store. News.com. April 28, 2003.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

“Federal regulators approved new rules on Monday that take a largely laissez-faire approach toward governing political speech and advertising on the Internet, at least for now.

“In a 6-0 vote, the Federal Election Commission adopted 107 pages of rules detailing long-awaited final regulations that primarily focus on paid political advertisements appearing on Web sites. They would also extend a broad exemption enjoyed by traditional news organizations to the online world–everything from Slate and Salon.com to soapboxing bloggers.

“Until now, Internet politicking has been essentially unregulated, which proponents of online free speech say has led to no substantial problems. But now that a formal regulatory framework is in place, they argue, it will be tempting for the government to add to it over time and gradually stifle robust Internet debate.”

Anne Broache. Feds Approve Liberal Election Rules For Net. News.com. March 27, 2006.

See also:

EFF Deep Links. FEC Protects Bulk of Internet Speech From Campaign Finance Rules. March 29, 2006.

Federal Election Commission. Amendments to Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for the Internet Communications Rulemaking. (.pdf) March 27, 2006.

Federal Election Commission. Final Rules and Explanation and Justification for the Internet Communications Rulemaking. (.pdf) March 24, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

The New York Times has published yet another article about how Google is revving up their Washington, DC lobbying efforts in an attempt to further domestic and international business objectives. Esther Dyson is quoted in the article saying “It’s sad. The kids are growing up. They’ve lost youth and innocence. Now they have to start being grown-ups and playing at least to some extent by grown-up rules.”

Google’s move into the political game is not really news, as regular CopyCense™ readers have been aware of this trend for quite some time. (See our Politics archive for background.) What surprises me is how shocked and disappointed other influential technologists seem to be about this inevitable development.

Despite its Stanford roots and academic progeny, Google is a large business that is competing for market and mindshare against well-heeled and -connected firms (like Yahoo! and Microsoft, both of which have developed an extensive Washington infrastructure). The company was just added to the S&P 500 index. Frankly, it may be corporate malfeasance for Google not to make the sort of political, governmental, and international contacts that would help them get done what they want or need to get done.

One recent internationally dormant area that Google may explore with its new lobbying machine is database legislation. More on this is forthcoming in my new article “O’Connor’s Copyright Legacy: Feist & Database Protection,” published exclusively in the April 2006 edition of Information Today.

K. Matthew Dames. “O’Connor’s Copyright Legacy: Feist & Database Protection.” Information Today. April 2006. (Forthcoming.)

Kate Phillips. Google Joins the Lobbying Herd. The New York Times. March 28, 2006.

See also:

Paul R. La Monica. Google: Too Legit To Quit. CNNMoney.com. March 28, 2006.

American Library Association. Current Status: Database Protection. Jan. 26, 2006.

American Library Association. Database Protection Legislation. No date.

Issues in Scholarly Communication. What Does Reed Elsevier Lobby For? Jan. 24, 2006.

The Patry Copyright Blog. Sandra Day O’Connor. July 5, 2005.

Bitlaw. Database Legal Protection. No date.

American Association of Law Libraries Washington Affairs Office. AALL Issue Brief: House Legislation To Protect Databases. July 2001.

Doug Isenberg. The Great Database Debate. Gigalaw.com. April 2001.

Peter K. Yu. Evolving Legal Protection for Databases. Gigalaw.com. December 2000.

U.S. Copyright Office. Report of Legal Protection for Databases. August 1997.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

Movie theaters, which have been struggling economically due to lackluster films, home theater systems, and overbuilding; are investigating a new ploy to get people into seats: broadcasting sports events.

A News.com report (via Reuters) notes that as more theater chains convert their projection equipment from film to digital and 3D systems, operators are looking to bolster midweek ticket sales by moving TV events to the big screen. The hope is that the combination of event-based sports programming, larger seats, better sound, bigger screens, and three-dimensional effects (along with roving hot dog vendors) will convince consumers that the theater is the next best thing to being there. (I can only imagine that this would be particularly appealing to NASCAR fans.)

I wonder if the theaters would have to obtain special licenses to broadcast these events. I recall that HBO occasionally cracks down on business establishments that hold special events that are tied to Sunday night broadcasts of The Sopranos. (Perhaps this is because HBO, as part of fee-based cable television, is not owned by the public, as are the network airwaves.) I am not well enough versed in broadcasting and applied copyright to offer a legitimate response to this question. If anyone has an answer to this issue, please e-mail us, and we’ll post the analysis.

Reuters. Movie Theaters Aim For Live 3D Sports. News.com. March 24, 2006.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

It seems the lawsuits against Google concerning the legality of its Book Search project are affecting the search company’s digitization efforts outside the United States. ZDNet Australia reported last week that Australian libraries have withheld their collections from Google’s Books Library Project for fear of facing legal action from that country’s publishing industry. A high level official from the National Library of Australia is on record as supporting the project, but concedes that institution likely will not partner with Google while there is “legal uncertainty.”

The article doesn’t address this issue, but a decision on the merits in the American litigation may not affect legal issues over the Books Library Project in countries outside the United States, since copyright law differs in each country. In fact, one could argue that a settlement could have a bigger impact on the Project’s internationalization. Since the large companies that comprise the American publishing industry do business across the globe, these companies would have an incentive to persuade international countries to honor the terms and conditions of such a settlement.

Munir Kotadia. Legal Issues Delay Libraries’ Google Move. ZDNet Australia. March 20, 2006.

See also:

K. Matthew Dames. Google Shouldn’t Punt on Litigation. CopyCense. Oct. 5, 2005.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.

Correction appended (see below)

The Thomson Corporation, the French conglomerate that owns the Westlaw computer-assisted legal research system, will debut NexGuard at next month’s National Association of Broadcasters trade show. Billed as “content security” (instead of the rather-tainted term “digital rights management”), NexGuard is marketed to the entertainment industry, which often suffers piracy by employees who leak out movies or music prior to their official release date.

DRM Watch is touting NexGuard as “the most comprehensive B2B security technology that we know of for video content.”

Bill Rosenblatt. Thomson Announces B2B Content Security for Video. DRM Watch. March 23, 2006.

Correction: NexGuard is manufactured by Thomson, a French company that “provides technology, systems, and services to help its Media & Entertainment clients.” It is different from The Thomson Corporation, a Canadian company that is the parent company of Westlaw.

CopyCense™: K. Matthew Dames on the law, business, and technology of digital content. A business venture of Seso Digital LLC.