Category Archives: Legislation

FTC to host public workshop on video game loot boxes

17 Wednesday Apr 2019

Posted by in Federal Initiatives, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Tech Developments

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The Federal Trade Commission will examine consumer protection issues related to video game loot boxes at a public workshop on August 7, 2019, in Washington, DC. Loot boxes are in-game rewards that contain a random assortment of virtual items (loot) to assist a player advance in the online game or to customize his or her game avatar.

The workshop, titled “Inside the Game: Unlocking the Consumer Issues Surrounding Loot Boxes,” will bring together a variety of stakeholders, including industry representatives, consumer advocates, trade associations, academics, and government officials to discuss concerns regarding the marketing and use of loot boxes and other in-game purchases, and the potential behavioral impact of these virtual rewards on young consumers.

The workshop is expected to address the following topics:

  • A look at the in-game transaction landscape, including the origins and evolution of loot boxes and their role in game play and the digital marketplace;
  • Research examining consumer behavior, including child and adolescent behavior, in the context of video games and digital transactions; and
  • A discussion of consumer awareness and education about in-game digital transactions, including the mechanics, marketing, and financial commitments associated with loot boxes.

The workshop, which is free and open to the public, will be at the Constitution Center, 400 7th St., SW, Washington, D.C., and will be webcast live starting at 9:00 AM.

Supreme Court confirms that works must be registered before commencing copyright lawsuit

05 Tuesday Mar 2019

Posted by in Copyright, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Litigation, Supreme Court

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Screen Shot 2019-03-05 at 8.07.53 AM.png

The much-anticipated ruling for Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com, LLC, et al. has arrived. Yesterday, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg delivered the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court, confirming that a work must be registered prior to commencing a copyright infringement lawsuit.

Held: Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright. Upon registration of the copyright, however, a copyright owner can recover for infringement that occurred both before and after registration.

This ruling confirms the literal reading of 17 U.S.C. §411(a), which states that “no civil action for infringement of the copyright in any United States work shall be instituted until … registration of the copyright claim has been made in accordance with this title.”

Fourth Estate, a news organization, had argued that, because “registration is not a condition of copyright protection” under 17 U.S.C. §408(a), then §411(a) should not bar a copyright claimant from enforcing that protection in court once they have applied for registration.

Now it is clear that registration must be obtained before commencing a lawsuit. This means that copyright owners must be even more diligent about filing applications for their significant works. The time spent waiting on an application to register would normally remove any option of quick, decisive action by a copyright owner against an infringer.

The best option for late applicants will be the Copyright Office’s Special Handling procedure, which allows for registration in less than a week for an additional $800 Special Handling fee.

Justice Ginsburg’s opinion acknowledged the current administrative delay of the Copyright Office, acknowledging that Congress is in the best position to protect copyright claimants, either by increasing funding to the Copyright Office or revising the language of §411(a).

True, registration processing times have increased from one to two weeks in 1956 to many months today. Delays, in large part, are the result of Copyright Office staffing and budgetary shortages that Congress can alleviate, but courts cannot cure. Unfortunate as the current administrative lag may be, that factor does not allow this court to revise §411(a)’s congressionally composed text.

This blog will begin to monitor the real-world impact of this decision and report back periodically.

501(c)(3) v. 501(c)(6) Nonprofits

26 Tuesday Feb 2019

Posted by in Intellectual Property, Legislation, Nonprofit

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Many people are familiar with the “501(c)(3)” nonprofit designation. But what many don’t realize is that Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code is just one of many tax law provisions granting exemption from the federal income tax to nonprofit organizations. Another common designation is the 501(c)(6) nonprofit. For each type of exemption classification, varying rules and requirements may apply. The following information will help nonprofits and donors understand the distinction between these two types of nonprofit organizations, 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6), including important tax deduction consequences.

501(c)(3)

501(c)(3) exemptions apply to entities organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (e.g. NCAA).

Donors who make charitable contributions to most types of 501(c)(3) organizations generally are afforded a charitable deduction under section 170 of the Internal Revenue Code. Regulations specify the applicable requirements for donors to claim such deductions (e.g., receipts for donations over $250).

501(c)(6)

A 501(c)(6) is specifically reserved to business leagues. A business league is an association of persons having some common business interest, the purpose of which is to promote such common interest and not to engage in a regular business of a kind ordinarily carried on for profit. Trade associations and professional associations are business leagues. To be exempt, a business league’s activities must be devoted to improving business conditions of one or more lines of business as distinguished from performing particular services for individual persons. 501(c)(6) organizations are exempt from most federal income taxes. However, donations to a 501(c)(6) are not tax deductible as charitable contributions, as is the case with a 501(c)(3). Donations to 501(c)(6) organizations are not required to be disclosed.

Here’s a side-by-side comparison of key characteristics of 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(6) nonprofit designations:

Note: this blog post contains general advice. Please consult your own attorney or accountant with specific legal and tax issues.

 

New Indiana IP/Technology Laws taking effect July 1, 2013

01 Monday Jul 2013

Posted by in Indiana, Intellectual Property, Legislation, Privacy, Social Media, Trademark

≈ Leave a comment

It’s July 1 and you know what that means. It means hundreds of new laws go into effect to govern, tax, confuse and confound the citizenry.

New Indiana Laws July 2013I’ve reviewed the full list of new Indiana laws (at bottom of post) for intellectual property, privacy or technology-related laws.

Among other things, it is now a felony in Indiana to publish intimidating communications on social media sites. The new provision (SB 361, see below) specifically addresses the increasingly common “bomb threat/gun threat” made via social media with the intent to cause evacuation.

Intimidation (IC 35-45-2-1)

1. (a) A person who communicates a threat to another person, with the intent: (1) that the other person engage in conduct against the other person’s will; (2) that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act; or (3) of: (A) causing: (i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or (ii) a vehicle; to be evacuated; or (B) interfering with the occupancy of: (i) a dwelling, building, or other structure; or (ii) a vehicle

SB 361
Effective: July 1, 2013
Code Citations Affected: IC 35-31.5; 35-45
Intimidation. Provides that for the crime of intimidation, “communicates” includes posting a message electronically, including on a social networking web site. Provides that it is a Class D felony if the person to whom the threat is communicated is: (1) an employee of a hospital, school, church, or religious organization; or (2) is a person that owns a building or structure that is open to the public or is an employee of the person. Specifies that communicating a threat with the intent to interfere with the occupancy of certain buildings may constitute intimidation. Increases the penalty to a Class C felony if it is committed against a judge, bailiff, prosecuting attorney, or deputy prosecuting attorney.

SB 369
Effective: May 11, 2013 (Sections 3-5); July 1, 2013 (Sections 1-2)
Code Citations Affected: IC 4-23; 5-14
Public records. Allows a public agency to withhold from public disclosure records criminal intelligence information. Allows a public agency to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of investigatory records of law enforcement agencies or criminal intelligence information, if the fact of the existence of the information would: (1) impede or compromise an ongoing law enforcement investigation or endanger an individual; or (2) reveal information that would have a reasonable likelihood of threatening public safety. Allows a public agency to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record the disclosure of which would expose vulnerability to terrorist attack, if the fact of the record’s existence or nonexistence would reveal information that would have a reasonable likelihood of threatening public safety. Allows a person to file an action in court to appeal an agency’s refusal to confirm or deny the existence of a record. Clarifies when a request for a record is deemed denied and appealable. Provides that when a public agency refuses to confirm or deny the existence of a record under certain circumstances, the name and title or position of the person responsible for the refusal shall be given to the person making the records request.

SB 471
Effective: July 1, 2013
Code Citations Affected: IC 16-42
Prescriptions for brand name drugs. Permits a health care practitioner to use words of similar meaning instead of the statutory phrase “Brand Medically Necessary” when writing a prescription for a brand name drug when the practitioner does not want the pharmacist to substitute, under certain government programs, a generically equivalent drug product for the brand name drug.

HB 1219
Effective: July 1, 2013
Code Citations Affected: IC 34-30; 36-1
Privacy of home addresses. Beginning July 1, 2014, allows a city, town, county, or township (unit) that operates a public Internet web site data base containing the names and addresses of property owners to establish a procedure to permit a law enforcement officer, a judge, or a victim of domestic violence who participates in the attorney general’s address confidentiality program (covered person) to restrict disclosure to the general public of the covered person’s home address. Provides that a covered person must submit a written request to a unit in order for the unit to restrict access to the covered person’s home address through a public property data base web site. Provides that the unit must restrict access to the information of a covered person until the covered person submits a written request to the unit to allow access to the information. Provides that if a covered person: (1) has a name change; and (2) notifies the unit in writing of the name change; the unit must prevent disclosure of the covered person’s home address and both the covered person’s former name and new name. Allows a unit to charge a reasonable fee. Provides immunity from civil liability for certain units that restrict address disclosure.

HB 1341
Effective: July 1, 2013
Code Citations Affected: IC 21-18
Standard electronic transcripts. Establishes the Indiana e-transcript program (program). Provides that the commission for higher education shall administer the program. Provides that, beginning July 1, 2015, the program will allow all students at all accredited high schools to request that their transcripts be transmitted electronically to state educational institutions, participating Indiana not-for-profit or privately endowed institutions, and participating Indiana institutions authorized by the board for proprietary education. Provides that a governing body of an accredited nonpublic secondary school may elect to use the common electronic transcript. Requires the department of education, in collaboration with state educational institutions and the commission for higher education, to develop a common electronic transcript.

HB 1393
Effective: July 1, 2013
Code Citations Affected: IC 33-23; 33-24; 33-37
Judicial technology and automation. Establishes the judicial technology oversight committee (committee) to: (1) conduct a continuous study of information technology applications for Indiana’s judicial system; (2) make recommendations to the division of state court administration (division) for the establishment of a pilot program concerning electronic filing; (3) allow public court records to be available on the Internet [emphasis added]; (4) study the appropriate use of private sector vendors; and (5) make recommendations to the supreme court concerning the implementation of policies, standards, and rules that promote the effective use of technology and automation in Indiana courts. Provides that the committee consists of: (1) the chief justice of the supreme court; (2) the chief information officer of the office of technology; (3) two members of the senate; (4) two members of the house of representatives; (5) one trial court judge; (6) two circuit court clerks, with one clerk for a county that does not operate under the state’s automated judicial system and one clerk for a county that operates under the state’s automated judicial system; (7) one attorney admitted to the practice of law in Indiana; and (8) an individual affiliated with a taxpayer organization. Requires the division to develop and implement a standard protocol for sending and receiving certain court data by December 31, 2013, and requires the standard protocol to permit vendors to access the system on an equitable basis. Allows the budget committee to release funds for the judicial technology and automation project after the division certifies in conjunction with the Indiana office of technology that the judicial technology automation project is in compliance with certain information sharing and exchange requirements. Provides that the automated record keeping fee increases for two years from $5 to $7 for all civil, criminal, infraction, and ordinance violation actions except actions resulting in the accused person entering into a: (1) pretrial diversion program agreement; or (2) deferral program agreement. Allocates the $2 fee increase as follows: (1) $2 to the state, if the county is operating under the state’s automated judicial system; or (2) $1 to the state and $1 to the county if the county is not operating under the state’s automated judicial system. Provides that the automated record keeping fee is $5 for all civil, criminal, infraction, and ordinance violation actions resulting in the accused person entering into a: (1) pretrial diversion program agreement; or (2) deferral program agreement.

Here is the full list of new Indiana laws. There’s plenty of juicy stuff in there so give it a read at your convenience. Good luck out there!

Indiana Court Upholds Social Media Ban for Sex Offenders

25 Monday Jun 2012

Posted by in Bloggers, Indiana, Legislation, Litigation, Social Media, Southern District of Indiana

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

A recent ruling from the Southern District of Indiana is making news around the country. Despite a challenge by the ACLU, an Indiana law that bans sex offenders from various social media sites has been upheld. Indiana’s law is similar to laws being challenged in other states. The ACLU has promised an appeal to this ruling, so stay tuned for more.

A national civil rights group said Sunday it would appeal a federal judge’s decision to uphold an Indiana law that bans registered sex offenders from accessing Facebook and other social networking sites used by children.

On Friday, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt said in an 18-page order that the state has a strong interest in protecting children and that the rest of the Internet remains open to those who have been convicted.

“Social networking, chat rooms, and instant messaging programs have effectively created a ‘virtual playground’ for sexual predators to lurk,” Pratt wrote in the ruling, citing a 2006 report by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that found that one in seven youths had received online sexual solicitations and one in three had been exposed to unwanted sexual material online. ABC News

Below are the ruling and original complaint:

DOE v. PROSECUTOR, MARION COUNTY, INDIANA
1:12-cv-00062-TWP-MJD