legalbits-blog

[legalbits-blog]

What are clouds made of?

What is cloud computing? 

What technologies are involved with cloud computing? 

Go and check this video. It’s a bit long and technical, but it’s well explained and not too difficult to understand for non-techies. 

LOL :D

[legalbits-blog]

I’ve always believed that technology is not inherently good or bad. Its uses determine if it is beneficial or evil. And this is an obvious example of how humans shape technology for their revolting purposes. 

Although ex-post mechanism are always needed, these risks particularly require ex-ante measures. Therefore, one possible solution is to study these misuses during the designing process. Designers should carefully consider these risks to put mechanisms in place to mitigate them.

The people who called into the help hotlines and domestic violence shelters said they felt as if they were going crazy.

One woman had turned on her air-conditioner, but said it then switched off without her touching it. Another said the code numbers of the digital lock at her front door changed every day and she could not figure out why. Still another told an abuse help line that she kept hearing the doorbell ring, but no one was there.

Their stories are part of a new pattern of behavior in domestic abuse cases tied to the rise of smart home technology. Internet-connected locks, speakers, thermostats, lights and cameras that have been marketed as the newest conveniences are now also being used as a means for harassment, monitoring, revenge and control.

By Nellie Bowles 

[legalbits-blog]

How to bake cookies

Cookies might seem easy to bake. However, despite the efforts of the Data Protection Directive, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the E-Privacy Directive, there are, at least, two different recipes across Europe. One recipe is supported by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the European Data Protection Board (EDPB), the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and the Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) while the other is developed by the Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD). Be patient. We need to read both to bake the best possible cookie.

Cookies in Europe

Let’s begin with the CJEU judgement in the Planet49 case (C‑673/17) about ‘cookie consent’. In order for consent to be valid, the Court rules that it should be:

Active:

“the requirement of an ‘indication’ of the data subject’s wishes clearly points to active, rather than passive, behaviour.” (par. 52)

Unambiguous:

“Only active behaviour on the part of the data subject with a view to giving his or her consent may fulfil that requirement.” (par. 54)

Specific: 

“be ‘specific’ in the sense that it must relate specifically to the processing of the data in question and cannot be inferred from an indication of the data subject’s wishes for other purposes.” (par. 58)

Informed: 

“clear and comprehensive information implies that a user is in a position to be able to determine easily the consequences of any consent he or she might give and ensure that the consent given is well informed.” (par. 74)

From these features, it can be inferred that under the Data Protection Directive scrolling down or continuing browsing the website cannot constitute valid consent.

Article 29 Working Party (WP29) Guidelines on consent under the GDPR, endorsed by the EDPB, notes that:

“[M]erely continuing the ordinary use of a website is not conduct from which one can infer an indication of wishes by the data subject to signify his or her agreement to a proposed processing operation.“ 

Following these guidelines, both ICO and CNIL also consider that these actions cannot be seen as valid consent. 

Although the CJEU doesn’t cover the use of ‘cookie walls’ nor explains what ‘freely given’ means under the Directive, these national supervision authorities (ICO and CNIL) consider that ‘cookie walls’ are not GDPR compliant because it is a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach.

Spanish cookies have a different taste

One month after the CJEU ruling, the AEPD issued its guidelines on consent. And they decided to change some ingredients. 

First, closing the cookie banner, clicking on any link, scrolling down and continuing browsing the website satisfy the requirements for valid consent. However, this doesn’t apply to sensitive data.

Second, ‘cookie walls’ are lawful unless they hinder users’ legitimate rights.

Which is the ‘best’ recipe?

The harmonisation aimed by the GDPR, and legal certainty are at risk. Therefore, at least, the Spanish authority should have explained in detail their reasons to take this approach.

To avoid cookie indigestion, I believe it is wiser for Spanish organisations to follow the European recipe step by step. The new e-Privacy Regulation will have to be consistent with the GDPR. Thus consent will be most likely addressed following WP29/EDPB’s approach. 

We better bake cookies thoroughly.

[legalbits-blog]

When it comes to content liability, Information Society Service Providers (ISSP) such as Facebook or Twitter play a crucial role. In this scenario, I believe political advertising can be considered as harmful content because it might contain misleading or false information which ultimately impacts on democracy and the right to free elections. Senator Elizabeth Warren proved that it is absolutely possible to pay and run a “fake news” ad on Facebook, without any kind of oversight. Therefore I celebrate Twitter’s decision (and TikTok’s too). It’s a first step against profiling and microtargeting for political purposes, but until others, like Facebook, do not follow the same path, there is a long way to go.

Here is a short video of Facebook’s approach to this issue.

Twitter bans all political advertising https://ift.tt/31XCQhB

[legalbits-blog]

Witches, zombies, ghosts, ... and pirates

Today’s Halloween. Zombies, ghosts, demons, witches and wizards will be everywhere. However, another species will also be amongst us: pirates. They are not always easy to find, but they are all over the place.

Some might believe that pirates are a thing of the past due to the rise of Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Amazon Prime Video or HBO. In fact, the Intellectual Property  Office (IPO) found out in 2016 that online piracy had fallen in comparison to previous years. This month, the Culture Ministry of Spain conducted a survey which reached the same conclusion.

Even though it’s Halloween, pirates aren’t exactly dead. Just one year ago, the “Music consumer insight report” showed that “more than one third of music consumers still pirate music”. Certainly, piracy affects industries differently. While over the last years illegal file-sharing in the audiovisual sector has declined, the sports industry has been facing difficult times. In today’s Halloween party, beoutQ is the devil. This pirate TV and streaming service based in Saudi Arabia illegally broadcast all sorts of sports events (football, tennis, basketball, Formula One or the Olympics) internationally. Some people have argued that “Piracy will kill sports”, and even though I do not agree with this statement because I am sure there are other ways to solve this problem, some of the most important world’s football bodies might agree with it since they have asked Saudi government to block beoutQ. The reason lies in the fact that, for example, for many Premier League teams, more than 85% of the revenue comes from broadcasting. With piracy, the broadcaster is not able to pay the club, which implies that clubs cannot pay their players. 

Piracy is reawakening. As mentioned, in the past years illegal file-sharing of films and TV series has considerably dropped due to Netflix or Amazon Prime Video. However, the BitTorrent usage is growing again (see also last year’s report). Now that we have multiple alternatives such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, HBO, CBS All Access and the soon-to-come Disney+, how is this possible? Well, re-read the question, and you’ll find the answer.

Twitter: @Jamie_2455

Nowadays, most users do not have a problem of availability, but an issue of affordability and convenience. If users want to watch their favourite contents, they need to subscribe to many different platforms, which is overly expensive. Therefore, users only subscribe to a few and pirate the rest. 

The entertainment industry is aware that piracy will increase if things remain the same. Thereby, they can now learn the lesson to mitigate piracy. If they really want to stop piracy, all they have to do is to “offer a low-priced, high-quality alternative”. Or even better, they could create a platform where the user can access everything, which is then linked to each provider’s website. It would require only one subscription, the user would be more likely to pay, and these companies would keep earning money.

For now, we will still live among pirates, not only for Halloween but for all the seasons.

[legalbits-blog]

This trial would have shed light on what legal rights have meme creators in the US, and the protection of memes under copyright laws in the country. However, settlements are also a key instrument in legal battles. While we will still have to wait for a judgment on this issue, this discussion between Inforwars’ owner, Alex Jones, and his attorneys is interesting in order to understand their point of view and why they consider this settlement as a “legal victory”.

InfoWars Agrees to Pay Pepe the Frog Creator $15,000 in Copyright Settlement http://bit.ly/2Iuzefs

[legalbits-blog]

Over two years ago, @viakavish posted this comic. Despite the time that has elapsed, the tension between works protected by copyright and social media isn’t a thing of the past.

A quick look on Twitter shows that the company is daily dealing with copyright infringements. You can find below some examples of successful content removal requests on Twitter due to copyright infringements:

“Trump's video taken off Twitter after band Nickelback complains”

“Twitter removes Trump’s video featuring music from The Dark Knight for copyright infringement“

[legalbits-blog]

Is it possible to sell digital video games?

Back in 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its decision on UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Group (C-128/11). According to the judgement, download-only-software can be resold under some conditions.

So, is it legal to sell download-only video games?

Warning! This blog will only tackle digital computer games, downloaded from platforms such as Steam, Origin or UPlay.

Now, whereas computer programs fall under the Software Directive (2009/24/EC), other types of digital contents (i.e. e-books) are regulated in the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC). This distinction is essential because:

a)     There are meaningful differences between both Directives

Arguably, the main finding of the UsedSoft case is that the doctrine of exhaustion also applies to intangible goods, this doctrine involves that “once copyright-protected work has been publicly put on the market within the European Economic Area (EEA), it can be freely resold within the EEA”. (1)

One could argue that if it is possible to sell an online copy of Microsoft Office, why wouldn’t it be possible to sell a Steam copy of Sid Meier’s Civilization V?

As mentioned, computer programs fall under a specific Directive (lex specialis), while to other digital contents apply the Information Society Directive (2001/29/EC), in which its recitals 28 and 29 and Article 3(3) note that the doctrine of exhaustion does not cover digital copies of any artwork.

b)     The ruling solely applies to the Software Directive

Even though the CJEU recognises that the concepts used in both Directives should have the same meaning, it notes that:

“[E]ven supposing that Article 4(2) of Directive 2001/29, (…), indicated that, for the works covered by that directive, the exhaustion of the distribution right concerned only tangible objects, that would not be capable of affecting the interpretation of Article 4(2) of Directive 2009/24, having regard to the different intention expressed by the European Union legislature in the specific context of that Directive”. (par. 60, C-128/11)

Consequently, it can’t be inferred from this judgement that the doctrine of exhaustion also applies to digital contents other than software. In fact, in 2014, the Landgericht Berlin ruled that the UsedSoft digital exhaustion doesn’t apply to video games. (2)

What if we consider video games as software?

We can’t. Paragraph 23 of the CJEU judgement on the case Nintendo Co. Ltd and Others v PC Box Srl and 9Net Srl (C-355/12) states that videogames can’t be deemed as computer programs.

A bright future?

Twitter: @UFCquechoisir

Recently, the UFC-Que Choisir revealed that the High Court of Paris decided that it should be possible to resell games from a Steam library, and ruled that Steam’s clause, which prohibits selling computer games is “deemed unwritten” due to its unfair and unlawful nature. (3) For further explanation: ‘Condamnation de Steam’ and video (French only). However, this ruling can be appealed, which means we will still need to wait for a definitive answer.

 Concluding, I believe Directive 2009/24 is more suitable to the current digital world than Directive 2001/29, due to its better technological understanding. It must have been difficult to foresee in 2001 the rise of platforms such as Steam, but now that they have come into play, I think it’s time to amend Directive 2001/29.