legalphoenix-blog

[legalphoenix-blog]

For this week’s post, I have decided to share the page that helped me the most to understand what is meant by cloud computing when I first came across this concept. The explanation is very simple and helpful as a starting point and although the issues and challenges of this concept as not included they way it is structured redeems that. 

[legalphoenix-blog]

This article puts together several considerations in regards to the GDPR and the ‘Privacy by Design’ principles; which personally helped me to understand both legal and IT side of the issue.

Dr. Cavoukian’s ‘Privacy by Design’ is one of the core components of EU’s GDPR directive, and it applies to both processors and controllers of personal date online. This reactive approach of the EU law is a step towards being more proactive in the future; rather than reactive, as the seven principles by Dr. Cavoukian prescribe. 

What is fascinating by this directive, is that the law applies even to organisations and data processors and controllers outside EU; if they handle personal data about EU. The scope of this directive is considerably extensive and highlights the importance of protecting personal data even in jurisdictions out of the scope of the EU Member States’ jurisdiction. Such progress in IT law indicates that the law is slowly starting to evolve in a faster pace than before; one cannot wait to see what the future holds in the legal sphere of IT world and how the privacy of the users and functioning of the web will coexist. 

[legalphoenix-blog]

This week’s seminar was an eye-opener due to the breadth and seriousness of the topic of online privacy.  Several consideration have been going through my mind, motivated by this I decided to search for the opinions of other people, wondering online I came about several TEDx talks on the topic. This one posted intrigued me the most, as although it was not one of the most recent ones, it framed the issues and considerations that some of us share. 

Hence, if once our personal data enters the internet; it leaves away from our control and can be accessed and analyzed and compared with other online users! Therefore, what is really the point of striving for the preservation of our personal data if everything is already out there and cannot be deleted. 

Perhaps one would say that; by raising awareness and advocating for changes could limit the uncontrollable access to our personal data without the actual knowledge of the user in the future. But from a realistic, or rather a nihilistic point of view this can never be achieved, at least not 100% not even with the new General Data Protection Regulation  directive! It seems that the law cannot act proactively in the situations regarding IT considerations as the IT world at the moment, is steps ahead than the legal system.

[legalphoenix-blog]

This week’s topic on Content Liability and more specifically the reference to cases attempting to sue Google and other ISSPs intrigued me. Inspired by the fact that in most cases, if not in all the parties attempting to sue ISSPs and more specifically, GAFAM failed to succeed; I tried to find a case that perhaps could challenge this standard and rigid approach. 

Therefore, in search of ‘the exception that proves the rule’ I came across  the case of Australian  Milorad Trkulja, who sued Google for defamation  over search results and search term auto-completions. The case has not been yet settled, but it seems to be an important one; as the Australian High Court permitted  Mr Trkulja sue Google for defamation; by disregarding the ‘public interest immunity’ defense by Google.  

Cases such as the aforementioned are of great significance as it challenges ISSPs status and also encourages natural persons to sue in situations where their rights are being infringed. It is worth noting that, this case is one of the very few that an individual was allowed to challenge the functioning of ISSPs but nevertheless this should not be disregarded; but instead to be taken into consideration.   

[legalphoenix-blog]

Who would have ever expected such radical developments in the IT Law; even having people that download copyright-protected material to now face imprisonment. Is this a step taken too far? What should we expect in the future? Is this an effective route that the legal system and government have decided to embark? 

All these legal questions, not only confuse lawyers  but also scare everyday internet users that may even be using/downloading copyright-protected material without even realizing that they are infringing the law. 

[legalphoenix-blog]

One of Decca Records’ most earning compositions, ‘Bitter Sweet Symphony’, kept playing in mind the whole time during the second half of the Copyrights Seminar. When the song, became a hit, the Verve was sued by the Rolling Stones manager, Allen Klein and Andrew Loog Oldham, on copyrights infringement and licencing issues; claiming that their song had abused Rolling Stones song, ‘The Last Time.’ 

This famous legal controversy in The Verve's history is a highly  debatable. It sheds light on loopholes and how some times rights can be abused and as a result impede creativity and initiate confusion. Just like ‘Bitter Sweet Symphony’, used a sample from ‘The Last Time’ song; likewise Rolling Stones themselves were inspired by The Staple Singers song, ’This May Be The Last Time’. Arguably, copyrights were initially introduced as a way of inspiring creativity. However, when inspiration becomes a commodity, money is the most important aspect and this where economic and expediency arguments not only undermine the arts but also the purpose and functions of the law.    

[legalphoenix-blog]

Occasioned by this week’s seminar on Copyright in Cyberspace; this blog is inspired by the coincidental changes and extension of copyright periods. Which could arguably come about by either political pressures, need of sharing new ideas or the organic development of the law. 

A popular opinion supports that Mickey Mouse is indeed behind all these international and US extensions of copyrights periods as every time there was an extension to the rights Mickey Mouse’s protection were coming to an end. Danger Mouse has successfully managed to influence the legal sphere and ensure both its domestic and international protection and with that also ensuring the protection of other artists and creators as well. 

However, such popular beliefs which came about as a result of the extension of copyright periods raise considerations to the legal sphere; as nowadays copyrights can also be compared to the level of protection that property rights enjoy. Many legal commentators support that this should be resisted, as it introduces further constrains, limitations and confusion to the already complicated system of Intellectual Property law. 

Therefore, as the the Internet World expands and everything can be accessed online, it is expected that further changes in the copyright sphere will come about in the following years; especially now that another round of Mickey Mouse period of copyright protection era comes to an end (hence the relevant GIF). Such legal challenges, only inspire the legal sphere to work and produce laws and regulations that will adequately maintain order and stability in the international frame. 

[legalphoenix-blog]

IT vs IP

This week’s seminar fascinated me for numerous reasons. For starters, being unfamiliar with IP law and just beginning to emerge myself in the IT world and the different branches it encompasses and connects to; I was under the impression that these two areas are in a conflict; where a golden mean between these polarised areas ought to be reached.

Nevertheless, this impression of mine was changed upon attending the seminar and engaging into further research. To be more specific, the focus of this week’s post will be on Francis’ Gurry recent interview to the online magazine of World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) as it helps one to understand the case of UsedSoft GmbH v Oracle International Corp (C-128/11) on a different perspective. In that respect various legal and technological considerations rise; the obligations that rise from IP and IT fields need to be aligned. Mr Gurry emphasizes that the underlining purpose of the IP system is to encourage technological developments and in thus doing so to ‘create a sustainable economic basis for invention and creation’.

The question is whether IP and IT law can co-exist without undermining each other. The ‘open’ movements of the technological publications prefer that data should not be restricted to proprietary rights and legal concepts; which in essence the IP law adheres. As accordingly, any technological data used is the foundation of artificial intelligence and not a product of it. On a metaphorical level, this can be compared to any speaking language that ‘should be freely available to enable the development of artificial intelligence and other applications’. This approach is challenging as from a legal perspective the intellectual property rights of the owner ought to be protected and acknowledged, the fact that its creators and users promote its ‘open’ use arguably undermine the legality of IP.

Nevertheless, Mr Gurry upon being questioned whether or not this development will render the IP system irrelevant, he refuted it. To sceptics however, this is not really reassuring as it seems that technological developments are always a step ahead. This is evident in the pivotal case of UsedSoft, which gave rise to numerous debates due to the challenge of the ‘exhaustion principle.’ Is this a new era for the second hand market in technological developments? Has the distribution model changed? Will there no longer be permanent licensing and monthly subscription will prevail? Are we heading towards an era of distributing context instead of software?

All these questions emphasize the importance of balancing law and technological changes; both fields are global infrastructures that did not really interact to the level we have experienced these recent years. The need to ensure a harmonic interaction between IP and IT is a challenge that needs to be balanced in order to ‘ensure at least functional interoperability’ as Mr Gurry comments. For that reason, one should not look at the IT developments as legal challenges that aim to undermine the legality of governments but more as incentives to initiate development for proactive legislation.