by Karen Horowitz
4 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 8 (2008)
Intellectual Property
2/25/2008
To date, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has become increasingly tough on the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials. In light of the increased prevalence of suits against minors or persons with little ability to pay, individuals or institutions that provide the means for the infringing activities, such as guardians or network owners (including, for example, the owner of an unsecured home network or the owner of an Internet café), need to be aware of the potential liability they might face. To place liability upon an individual or institution providing Internet access, a plaintiff could file suit for indirect copyright infringement under the doctrines of vicarious liability, contributory infringement, or inducement. Alternatively, to receive damages from the guardian of a minor child, the plaintiff could file suit against the minor child and attempt to satisfy any judgment from that claim through state parental liability statutes. This Article will discuss these approaches to liability and the risks facing these classes of actors.
by G. Martin Bingisser
4 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 9 (2008)
Constitutional & Regulatory
2/25/2008
This Article discusses state laws requiring notification of a party whose personal information is held by a business or government agency when the third party’s security is breached and an unauthorized person accesses the personal information. In the wake of the 2005 ChoicePoint data breach, over half of the states passed legislation requiring that companies notify the affected parties after breach of personal information. Most of the state statutes followed the model set forth by California’s Security Breach Notification Act of 2002. However, significant variations exist between the different statutes, which can create compliance problems. This Article specifically illustrates the relevant differences, analyzes the effect of the statutes, and discusses the policy implications of such legislation.
by Jeffrey Bashaw
4 Shidler J. L. Com. & Tech. 10 (2008)
Corporate & Commercial
2/25/2008
The United States District Court for the Northern District of California recently held that websites which are tightly integrated with a physical store must be accessible to the blind, or risk running afoul of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). The court in this case, National Federation of the Blind v. Target (“Target”), declined to grant summary judgment for Target, a retailer which operates both physical stores and an e-commerce website, in a suit alleging that Target’s website, Target.com, was discriminating against the blind. This Article will describe the narrow application of Target, which found that websites which are tightly integrated with a physical store must be accessible to the blind to comply with the ADA. This Article also discusses the uncertainties this case leaves unanswered, such as at what point a business’ web presence becomes subject to this ruling and is required to be accessible to the blind. Finally, this Article will explore arguments about how the ADA may apply to pure e-commerce sites as well.