The long-running case of Solers, Inc. v. Doe in the District of Columbia raises the interesting dilemma of balancing significant free speech rights with the interest of an alleged "victim" to pursue claims against an alleged anonymous defamer.  Usually, this issue arises in the context of an online message board poster's public diatribe against someone or something, made under a pseudonym.  The alleged victim then sues the poster under the name "John Doe" and immediately subpoenas the web site host or publisher to try to discover the real identity of the poster.  Thus far, courts have acknowledged the transcendental importance of free speech and, for the most part, blocked disclosure of the posters' identities.  A collection of some of those cases is described here.  In Solers, there is a twist.  An informant ("whistleblower") made a private report to the SIIA via a piracy reporting link on the SIIA's web site, and Solers subsequently embarked on a quest to unmask that informant.  The latest appellate ruling in the case is a mixed bag for Solers, establishing significant hurdles that make it unlikely for Solers to acquire the identity of the informant, but giving Solers one more shot to try.  More significantly, the decision adds to a body of case law addressing when an alleged claim of wrongdoing may overcome the First Amendment right to make anonymous speech.

More...

I love this time of year:  Spring has sprung, new software and new content products are out in the marketplace, and of course the 2009 NFL Draft was conducted!  But for the time being I must hold off my dreams of the Redskins XLIV Super Bowl glory and concentrate on currently bigger issues...  Bigger issues like how to manage all these new license agreements that come with new content and software products.  Yes, I know my thoughts are a little off for actually thinking about license agreements, but call me crazy.

As I have previously mentioned in an earlier blog about SaaS in terms of managing compliance and the license; the management is not easy, not for the publisher or the buyer.  The same difficulties that the SaaS model faces of compliance and management, can be applied to when content comes into an organization.  Challenges pop up when a buyer has to properly distribute a PDF of a professional journal internally within the organization without violating any terms of the agreement, while at the same time trying to make sure that same professional journal is actually being read (used) in order to justify the price tag that came with its license agreement.  Management is not easy. 

Some tactics that an organization may consider when trying to be an effective manager of licenses within the organization is to make sure there are effective policies and procedures in place revolving around both software and content procurement and management.  End users within an organization must have the proper knowledge on how to properly procure software and/or content within the organization, this will help to provide some control of these assets once in the organization.  A properly enforced copyright management plan is a necessity for any organization to effectively manage their rights not only for compliance reasons, but for also having the knowledge of how much the assets are used.  The goal of any organization should be to maintain compliance while also maintaining their bottom line by only buying software and/or content that they truly need and use.

Organizations that centralize their software purchases stand a much better chance of being software compliant than those that do not have a formal process in place.  This is true for small and large organizations alike but certainly the risk of non-compliance increases as the size of the organization does.

The advantages of centralizing software acquisition cannot be overstated.  For those organizations that do not centralize their purchases, they run the risk of being either underlicensed or overlicensed.  After performing a software audit, many organizations have found that they are both underlicensed for some software titles and overlicensed for others.

Some organizations that are underlicensed have found themselves in the middle of an enforcement audit or lawsuit simply because the IT department did not have control over the software their employees were purchasing and using on a daily basis.  Organizations that are the target of these types of investigations run the risk of monetary fines and negative publicity. More...

Who knew that The Jeffersons had predicted the future with the theme song “Movin’ On Up”, but it looks like they nailed it on the head.  Technology is now up in the “clouds”. 

Cloud computing, by its most basic definition, is a computing environment where software and data are accessed over a network (e.g. the Internet), rather than stored on a local desktop or server.  With this model, users have the feel of software applications and data residing in the “clouds.” By more technical definition, the network of servers and connections is collectively known as “the cloud.” Computing at the scale of the cloud allows users to access supercomputer-level power. Using a thin client or other access point, like an iPhone, BlackBerry or laptop, users can reach into the cloud for resources as they need them. Other similar terms often used to refer to the cloud computing model are “on-demand computing,” and “Software as a Service,” or “SaaS.”More...

A question that comes up daily at SIIA is: What is proper documentation to show my company’s software is licensed?  There are several acceptable ways to demonstrate that your company’s software is properly licensed.

Dated licenses issued by the software publisher are always the best evidence of licensure.  However, if those are not available, your company should locate dated invoices, purchase orders, receipts, or packing slips issued by legitimate software vendors identifying the name and quantity of software purchased and the date of purchase.

Alternatively, if your company routinely purchases its software through the same reseller, the reseller should be able to provide your purchase history.  This history should include the name and quantity of the software sold and the date it was purchased.  More...

In anticipation of Barbie® turning 50 in March this year, I thought we could take a look at some of Barbie’s legal adventures over the years.  Because so much has been written on the Bratz dispute we will be focusing on other legal battles.   Jump in the Barbie Camper and let’s get the show on the road. First, a little history.  Barbie was actually born in 1958, at least according to her driver’s license, I mean trademark registration, which states Barbie was first used on dolls May 9, 1958.  I guess Barbie wanted to be a year younger so all the press states she’s turning 50 this year, I think she is really 51.  I stopped counting the number of copyright registrations that are in place for “molded dolls” with Barbie in the name; along with the “accessory” Barbie items that are registered. Mattel has covered the bases to protect the Barbie brand intellectual property.  Mattel seems to be the defendant as often as it is the plaintiff in varied legal actions from parody to copyright infringement to reverse likelihood of confusion actions. 

• PARODY

Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894 (9th Cir.2002)
In 1997, Aqua, a Danish band, produced the song “Barbie Girl” on the album Aquarium. In the song, one band member impersonates Barbie, singing in a high-pitched, doll-like voice; another band member, calling himself Ken, entices Barbie to "go party."  Mattel sued MCA Records for trademark infringement and lost.  The court held this was a true parody protected by First Amendment and the song was a commentary "about Barbie and the values . . . she [supposedly] represents." Because the song was about Barbie, "the use of Barbie in the song title clearly is relevant to the underlying work.” More...

A question I often times hear when discussing “backing up” ones software is:  “How many “back ups” am I allowed to make?”   And as the great Hip Hop legends, Run-DMC, once rapped It's Tricky!

To me making a “back up” or an archival copy of any software program that I have licensed should be a no-brainer.  I do not want to have to worry about any issues if my computer crashes or gets stolen, I want to be sure that I have “back ups” for emergency purposes.  However, where it gets confusing is if I have multiple “back ups”, which I am sure is why the question is asked in the first place.  Typically organizations will have an onsite “back up” of all software programs, while in addition have additional “back ups” at an offsite facility for disaster planning and recovery.  And these disaster planning and testing sites are what can throw a wrench into the issue of “how many “back ups” am I allowed to have” of software programs. More...