Jan 242012
 

Former Internet professional/webmaster now assisting clients with legal issues arising from the digital age. Particular expertise in those issues affecting Internet intermediaries, as well as experience with copyright/intellectual property, free speech, privacy, and other innovation policy matters generally.

Dec 172016
 

Hassell v. Bird – arguing that injunctions requiring non-party platforms to delete content on their systems are contrary to federal law. [amicus letter to California State Supreme Court in support of it hearing appeal]

Doe 14 v. Internet Brands – arguing that 47 U.S.C. Section 230 pre-empts state laws that create liability for platforms alleged to have breached a “duty to warn” users of their systems and services. [Ninth Circuit brief in support of petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc | reply to opposition to motion to file amicus brief]

Lenz v. Universal – arguing that by only requiring takedown notice senders to have a “subjective” good faith belief that user-posted content infringed their copyrights this weak standard invites illegitimate censorship of non-infringing speech in a way that the First Amendment does not permit. [Ninth Circuit brief in support of petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc | brief in support of a Petition for Writ of Certiorari at the United States Supreme Court]

Multi-time Machine v. Amazon – written on behalf of law professors arguing that the doctrine of initial interest confusion in trademark law did not apply to search engine results. [Ninth Circuit brief in support of petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc]

Smith v. Obama – written on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers arguing that government surveillance programs targeting communications’ metadata violated the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. [Ninth Circuit brief]

Jewel v. NSA – written on behalf of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers arguing that the NSA program diverting a copy of all of AT&T’s internet traffic to the government violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. [District Court brief | Ninth Circuit brief]

Garcia v. Google – arguing that statutory law precluded enjoining an Internet platform hosting user-generated content to remove that content. [Ninth Circuit brief in support of petition for rehearing/rehearing en banc | brief in support of granted rehearing

Dec 172016
 

Comment on behalf of Floor64/The Copia Institute on the Copyright Office study on Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Comment on behalf of the R Street Institute in the Copyright Office studies on embedded software copyright and Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Twice quashed subpoenas seeking the identity of an anonymous blogger who had published protected speech and recovered fees under California Code of Civil Procedure 1987.2.

Brief by intervenor College Broadcasters, Inc. in Intercollegiate Broadcasting Systems, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board arguing that per 17 U.S.C. Section 801(b)(7)(a) the Appointments Clause had no bearing on the Copyright Royalty Judges’ obligation to adopt a joint settlement as the rates and terms for the statutory license for webcasters.

Feb 102013
 

2014 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 69, p. 209, Winter 2014-2015

2013 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 69, p. 209, November 2013

2012 State of the Law Regarding Internet Intermediary Liability for User-Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 68, p. 289, November 2012

2011 State of the Law Regarding Website Owner Liability for User-Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 67, p. 305, November 2011

The State of the Law Regarding Website Owner Liability for User Generated Content 
The Business Lawyer, Vol. 66, p. 243, November 2010

Navigating the DMCA 
Internet Law for the Business Lawyer, 2nd Ed., ABA Publishing 2012

Copysense and Sensibility: How the Wiretap Act Forbids Universities from Using P2P Monitoring Tools 
Boston University Journal of Science & Technology Law, Vol. 12, p. 340, 2006