Traverse Internet Law: Internet Lawyers

Google Runs Into Trouble Oversees

It's been interesting watching the politics of the online world lately at Traverse Internet Law. Google has been struggling with the Chinese government's information policies and threatening to pull out of China altogether. Google's claim, in summary, is that China does not adequately embrace the concepts of free speech. Yes, Google argues, China must change its attitude and approach about suppressing dissent and repressing criticism. 

Is Google's problem really one of free speech? Or is the problem that Google, and other US bred online businesses, really don't like to follow the laws of other countries?

Do you remember the French legal actions against eBay for allowing the sale of Nazi memorabilia? Do you know about the ongoing trial of Google executives charged with criminal offenses in Italy over a video on Youtube?

Recently, Italy's largest media group sued Google for copyright infringement and wants 500 million euros in damages. The case is winding its way through the courts. In the US, Google would be shielded by laws in place for User Generated Content (the Communications Decency Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act). Those laws don't extend to Italy. And apparently to make sure Google is on the hook, new regulations proposed in the Italian parliament would create publisher liability for all user generated content, placing these sites on an even footing with television stations in terms of responsibility for the content. And that would make Google have to leave Italy for good. 

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. There is merit in that belief. And Google's problem is not just about the fundamental freedoms ignored in China. Google, you see, is realizing that it cannot impose its will and wisdom on the governing forces of the world. And certainly not on Italy, and its biggest media group, Mediaset, which is controlled by...

Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.

Remember...all politics is local.      

Internet Lawyer: $675,000 Copyright Infringement Judgment

A jury in Boston awarded $675,000 to the Recording Industry Association of America for copyright infringement after a Harvard Law School professor representing the defendant, a Boston University graduate student (Joel Tenenbaum), called upon the jury to "send a message" to the music industry by awarding minimal damages. As Internet lawyers, We are not suprised by the jury's response to this request...they actually sent 675,000 messages out! It can be tough coming down from the Ivory Towers of an out of touch liberal institution intent upon defending the scofflaws of the web. So, to the professor turned Internet lawyer for the day, and co-founder of the Berkman Center, a far left wing, liberal, free speech expansionist Harvard institution, welcome to the real world, Charles Neeson. Thank goodness for a jury of our peers. And Mr. Neeson, there is a big difference between teaching law at Harvard and actually trying cases to a jury of everyday people. We suspect you will return to Harvard, be patted on your back, be told how unfair the judge and jury were, and refer your client to a bankruptcy lawyer. Jurors, unlike students, bite back. In this case, 675,000 times.

Internet Law: Jury Increases Verdict in Music Copyright Case Retrial

We have been following the progress of the music copyright infringement cases over the years, often finding our firm defending those who receive the lawsuits or demand letters. The first case to go to trial resulted in a verdict of $222,000. All of the consumer rights groups jumped on the result, criticizing everything about the trial and taking the lawyer for the defendant to task for alleged incompetence. With new, supposedly expert, lawyers provided by, or supported by, the consumer rights groups and other free speech related coalitions, the Judge in the original trial agreed to a re-trial. Dozier Internet Law is battling these extremist groups all the time, and while we try to protect the intellectual property of businesses, these groups seem to always be supporting the right of others to take this property. Kind of a Robin Hood philosophy better suited for socialism than capitalism.

So, it would come as no surprise to Dozier Internet Law, frankly, that the retrial with these consumer rights minded copyright lawyers (at least that is how they are characterized online) would result in a jury verdict for the defendant. But that is not the way it has turned out. Looks like the case was not as weak as the consumer rights and anti-business forces believed.

The new jury verdict returned is almost ten times greater than the initial verdict, leaving the Defendant destitute for sure. The original verdict was for $9,250 per song. The new verdict is for $80,000 each song. The verdict has increased from $222,000 to $1.92 Million. And these groups, headed up by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, are again attacking the jury verdict. 

So, do they appeal and fight the case? It's hard to attack their own hand picked lawyer this time. And how much more will the next jury verdict be? Well done, consumer rights groups. Nice message to send out. The consumer rights in-house lawyers, (not the private firm representing the defendant), constantly spread the mantra that they will fight for you. But do you really want them? The last I looked, the leading consumer rights groups like EFF and Public Citizen didn't appear to have a single lawyer that has ever tried a case to a jury. If there is one on staff, I'll leave the comments open so you can list them. 

At Dozier Internet Law, we love going against the in-house lawyers for the ACLU, Public Citizen and EFF and other consumer rights type groups. They can sound great in press releases, and public commentary, and legal briefs. But you should see them in discovery, litigation and before a jury. And that's why they have no experience with jury trials. They are scared to try a case. They just settle cases in the quiet of the night. Because they are scared to lose and know that if they try the case, that is the likely result. And having a client get slammed for a $2 Million Judgment, and thereby ruining her financial situation for life, is hardly worth the principle in their minds. 

That's the notable part of this case. The case got tried to a jury. They were forced into trial given the circumstances. Ouch. Nice result.