Free for a Fee

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani with comments by Eric]

Weingand v. Harland Financial Solutions, C 11 3109 EMC (N.D. Cal.; June 19, 2012)

Weingand involves claims brought by an employee, and proposed counterclaims brought by the employer against the employee. Nor surprisingly, the employer tried to assert claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (and California Penal Code section 502, a state anti-hacking statute). The court grants the employer’s motion for leave to amend, finding that the counterclaims would survive a 12(b)(6) motion.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/08/employees_poste.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani, with comments from Eric]

WEC Carolina Energy Solutions LLC v. Miller, et al., 2012 WL 3039213 (4th Cir.; July 26, 2012)

We’ve blogged about the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act being stretched by plaintiffs in civil (particularly employment) cases. The Ninth Circuit in Nosal recently gave the statute a more limited interpretation, although it left some things unclear. (Here’s our blog post on the Nosal en banc panel opinion: “Comments on the Ninth Circuit’s En Banc Ruling in U.S. v. Nosal.”) The Fourth Circuit recently followed Nosal’s approach and went one step further. Both of these rulings make it much more difficult for employers to use the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act against departing employees.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/07/4th_circuit_lim.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

[Post by Venkat Balasubramani]

Koch Industries, Inc. v. Does, 10CV1275DAK (D. Utah; May 9, 2011) [.pdf]

EFF, Public Citizen and other similar organizations have excellent resources for creators of parody and satire on the internet. A recent case (litigated by Public Citizen) illustrated a few pitfalls a plaintiff–who is seeking to shut down such non-commercial content–may face. A commercial motivation does not automatically doom a parody or satire defense, but the total absence of a commercial motive will neutralize a plaintiff’s claims.

Other coverage:

“Utah Court Strikes Blow for Free Speech, Dismisses Trademark and CFAA Claims Against Political Activists” (EFF)
“Court Protects Hoax Press Release” (Bill McGeveran)
“In Which We Lose Our Funding And Are Reduced To Eating Gravel” (Popehat)
“In Koch spoof case, judge favors First Amendment” (CitizenVox)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2011/07/court_smacks_do_1.html and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

[Post by Venkat]

Jagex Ltd. v. Impulse Software, et al., Case No. 10-10216-NMG (D. Mass.) (Aug. 16, 2010)

Jagex operates “Runescape,” a popular and free online role-playing game. The game has over 130 million accounts, and users spend a significant amount of time “rising through the levels of the game”:

as of October, 2009, the three highest-ranking players had each spent an average of approximately 20,000 hours [!] involved in a game, e.g., 50 hours per week for almost eight years.

Impulse (along with the individual defendants) operate websites offering “cheat” tools – i.e., software that allows users to advance their characters without actually playing the game. Defendants’ software downloads a copy of Runescape and “uses a process called ‘reflection’ to examine the game’s internal operation which is normally hidden from users.” The software then “plays the game for its owner while she is away from her computer.”

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/09/runescape_publi_1.htmand was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.

[Post by Venkat]

Facebook v. Power Ventures, Case No. 5:08-cv-05780 JW (N.D. Cal.) (Facebook Motion) (EFF Amicus Brief)

Facebook and Power Ventures have been locked in a dispute over whether Power Ventures can access Facebook’s website and network outside of Facebook’s authorized developer channels. The dispute yielded an interesting ruling on Power.com’s motion to dismiss. The parties are both seeking summary judgment on the issue of whether Power.com’s conduct violates California Penal Code section 502(c). EFF recently weighed in with an amicus brief which makes the already interesting dispute even more interesting.

The Dispute: Facebook brought Computer Fraud and Abuse Act claims and copyright claims (along with a slew of other claims) against Power.com. Setting aside the peripheral trademark and CAN-SPAM claims, Facebook’s key allegations are that (1) Power.com accessed Facebook’s network “without authorization” in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (and section 502(c), the California computer crime statute); (2) Power.com accessed Facebook’s network in violation of the Facebook terms of use; and (3) Power.com copied the copyrighted portions of the Facebook website in the process of allowing Facebook users to access Facebook through Power.com’s interface. (There’s also an anti-circumvention claim tied to the unauthorized copying claim.) The court denied Power.com’s motion to dismiss. (See coverage of the court’s initial ruling on Power.com’s motion to dismiss from Tom O’Toole, Jeff Neuburger, and Cyberlaw Cases.)

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/05/eff_weighs_in_o.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.