<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Information Law RSS Feed</title><description>Latest Blog Articles from Information Law</description><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</link><language>en-Us</language><ttl>60</ttl><lastBuildDate>Sun, 5 Feb 2012 19:32:33 EST</lastBuildDate><copyright>Copyright 2012 , www.informationlaw.com.com All Right Reserved</copyright><item><title>The Top 7 Ways Employees' Use of Social Media Can Burn Your Company</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Top-7-Ways-Employees-Use-Social-Media-Can-Burn-Your-Company.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Chances are, your employees are using social media right now.&amp;nbsp; There&amp;rsquo;s also a good chance that they&amp;rsquo;re talking about your company, its products or services.&amp;nbsp; As a business owner, president, HR professional, or in-house counsel, here are the top 7 issues you &lt;em&gt;&lt;span style="text-decoration: underline;"&gt;need&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/em&gt; to consider to address your employees&amp;rsquo; use of social media and how it impacts your company:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;1. Trade Secrets are gone forever with a single click.&lt;/strong&gt; &amp;nbsp;Even harmless or inadvertent statements or posts can give away your company's trade secrets or confidential business plans. It is vital that you educate employees about identifying what is confidential information, the impact it can have on your company, and how to safeguard it properly.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;For example, you should make sure employees know it's improper to post prematurely - on personal or work websites - about product launches or other sensitive information.&lt;/p &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Top-7-Ways-Employees-Use-Social-Media-Can-Burn-Your-Company.htm" target="_blank"&gt;The Top 7 Ways Employees' Use of Social Media Can Burn Your Company&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 14:33:58 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Top-7-Ways-Employees-Use-Social-Media-Can-Burn-Your-Company.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>So you thought you owned your LinkedIn account?  Maybe not.</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/So-you-thought-you-owned-your-LinkedIn-account-Maybe-not.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;A very interesting court decision just came from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and is important for anyone who uses LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, or other social media as part of their employment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The case is Eagle v. Morgan, et al., Civil Action No. 11-4303 (E.D.Pa. December 22, 2011), and the general facts will be familiar to anyone with a passing interest in the legal posturing that occurs when a valued employee, particularly a former owner, leaves a long-time employer. Plaintiff Linda Eagle ("Eagle") founded and operated a financial services and training company for over twenty years. She and her partners sold the company, Edcomm, Inc., in October 2010, but remained on as employees until June 2011, when they were fired by the new owner, Sawabah Information Services Company.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;While she owned Edcomm, and later as its employee, Eagle had established a LinkedIn account, which she maintained with the help of her administrative assistant. When Eagle attempted to  &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/So-you-thought-you-owned-your-LinkedIn-account-Maybe-not.htm" target="_blank"&gt;So you thought you owned your LinkedIn account?  Maybe not.&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2012 10:29:00 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/So-you-thought-you-owned-your-LinkedIn-account-Maybe-not.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Sales Tax To Be Charged On ALL Internet Purchases In Pennsylvania</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/PA-Sales-Tax-Internet.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This past December 1, the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue (&amp;ldquo;D-REV&amp;rdquo;) officially challenged the notion of tax free shopping on the internet with the issuance of &lt;a href="pa.gov/portal/server.pt/document/1210543/st_bulletin_2011-01_pdf"&gt;Sales and Use Tax Bulletin 2011-01&lt;/a&gt; which provides that remote online retailers are expected to collect sales tax on Internet sales to Pennsylvania residents.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Although this is not an &amp;ldquo;&lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_tax"&gt;Amazon Law&lt;/a&gt;&amp;rdquo;, which places internet vendors in the same position as regular brick and mortar stores with respect to charging, collecting and remiting sales tax to the Commonwealth on purchases to residents of Pennsylvania, the bulletin clarifies existing rules and regulations so as to incorporate the intent of Amazon Laws without dealing with Pennsylvania&amp;rsquo;s current General Assembly or Governor&amp;rsquo;s office, both controlled by the Republican party, whic &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/PA-Sales-Tax-Internet.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Sales Tax To Be Charged On ALL Internet Purchases In Pennsylvania&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2011 11:44:47 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/PA-Sales-Tax-Internet.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Andy Baharlias</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Video game maker scores First Amendment win in right of publicity case</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Video-game-maker-First-Amendment-win-in-right-of-publicity-case.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment to Electronic Arts, Inc. (&amp;ldquo;EA&amp;rdquo;), finding its use of a former football player&amp;rsquo;s likeness in its annual &lt;em&gt;NCAA Football video &lt;/em&gt;games was fully protected noncommercial speech.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;EA publishes a video-game permitting users to manipulate the actions of college football teams with virtual players in a virtual world of simulated games. The football teams are identifiable by name, and the uniform designs, logos, and stadium fight songs are all licensed from the NCAA. The virtual players, on the other hand, are identified only by jersey number and position.&amp;nbsp; Ryan Hart, a former college football player for Rutgers&amp;mdash;a team depicted in the video games&amp;mdash;alleged that the depiction of a player avatar bearing his former number and position violated his right of publicity under New Jersey law.&amp;nbsp; EA responded that the videogame is expressive work protected by the First Amend &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Video-game-maker-First-Amendment-win-in-right-of-publicity-case.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Video game maker scores First Amendment win in right of publicity case&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 09 Nov 2011 09:56:40 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Video-game-maker-First-Amendment-win-in-right-of-publicity-case.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Entertainment Law</category></item><item><title>Actress Sues Amazon.com for $1M for Revealing her Age</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Actress-Sues-Amazoncom-for-1M-for-Revealing-her-Age.htm</link><description>&lt;div class="asset-body"&gt;&lt;p&gt;An anonymous &lt;a title="Amazon Sued For Publishing Actress's Real Age" href="http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/160613/amazon-sued-for-publishing-actresss-real-age.html?edition=39312"&gt;actress has sued Amazon&lt;/a&gt;, claiming that the company's Internet Movie Database (IMDb.com) published her age without her consent.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The anonymous Texan actress, alleges that most people consider it common knowledge that the older the actress, the less likely she will be able to become a breakout star. She said she signed up for a paid version of the listing website, called IMDb Pro, in 2008. After signing up for the service, her listing on the site allegedly was updated with her true age -- which, she says, is &amp;ldquo;many years older than she looks.&amp;rdquo;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;p&gt;She claims that she keeps her age strictly confidential, and that IMDb.com could only have discovered her real age by using her credit card information to scour public records for data about  &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Actress-Sues-Amazoncom-for-1M-for-Revealing-her-Age.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Actress Sues Amazon.com for $1M for Revealing her Age&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:48:06 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Actress-Sues-Amazoncom-for-1M-for-Revealing-her-Age.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Entertainment Law</category></item><item><title>You've Probably Violated LinkedIn's Terms of Service</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Youve-Probably-Violated-LinkedIns-Terms-of-Service.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Have you ever invited people you don't know to join your network on LinkedIn?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="logclick ct_cont"&gt;Believe it or not, you've just violated LinkedIn's terms of service, which was recently &lt;a href="http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=pop%2Fpop_user_agreement_summary" target="_blank"&gt;updated &lt;/a&gt;on &lt;span class="logclick ct_cont"&gt;June 16, 2011.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="logclick ct_cont"&gt;&lt;span class="logclick ct_cont"&gt;&lt;a class="logclick ct_cont" href="http://www.linkedin.com/static?key=user_agreement&amp;amp;trk=hb_ft_userag" target="_blank"&gt;Section 10 B &amp;ldquo;Don&amp;rsquo;t Undertake the following&lt;/a&gt;&amp;rdquo; includes&lt;/span&gt;&lt;em&gt; "Invite people you do not know to join your network."&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="logclick ct_cont"&gt;Violation of LinkedIn's Terms of Service includes termination of your membership, so you better make certain you know exactly who you're inviting!&lt;em&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="logclick ct_cont"&gt;&lt;span class="logclick ct_cont"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Youve-Probably-Violated-LinkedIns-Terms-of-Service.htm" target="_blank"&gt;You've Probably Violated LinkedIn's Terms of Service&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 12 Sep 2011 14:58:23 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Youve-Probably-Violated-LinkedIns-Terms-of-Service.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Reputation Management:  Dealing with negative online postings</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Reputation-Management-Dealing-with-negative-online-postings.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Consider this:&amp;nbsp; You are a successful physician with a distinguished career as an expert in a specialty field of medicine requiring a total of twelve years of niche training.&amp;nbsp; You&amp;rsquo;ve gone on to build a practice that thrives, providing quality, expert care to dozens of critically injured individuals requiring top notch, medical expertise.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Suddenly, several anonymous and defamatory postings display within Google, damaging both your ability to receive referrals from other treating physicians, and maintaining the confidence of new physician referrals, resulting on both a loss of revenue and several personal angst and suffering.&amp;nbsp; Further, you are unable to respond to the negative postings because of the HIPAA restrictions in place to protect patient confidentiality, despite the fact that the postings are alleged to be false.&amp;nbsp; You send email to the websites containing the negative postings, but they go unanswered.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, this is a far too-c &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Reputation-Management-Dealing-with-negative-online-postings.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Reputation Management:  Dealing with negative online postings&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Sun, 24 Jul 2011 16:16:48 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Reputation-Management-Dealing-with-negative-online-postings.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>How Many Refrigerators Are You Running In Your House?  Youd Be Surprised!</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Cable_Box_Electricity_PSA.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;This past Independence Day, the &lt;a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/05/opinion/05tue2.html?_r=3&amp;amp;ref=digitalvideorecorders"&gt;New York Times published an editorial&lt;/a&gt; describing the $3 billion dollar energy drain on the U.S. consumer economy by cable boxes and DVR&amp;rsquo;s which are always on, yet are only utilized approximately 33% of the time.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cable boxes and digital video recorders are not currently part of the &lt;a href="http://www.energystar.gov/"&gt;Energy Star program&lt;/a&gt;.&amp;nbsp; Once Energy Star was initiated for most large household appliances, manufacturers diligently reduced power consumption and the result was items like refrigerators running to the same specifications as prior to Energy Star, yet utilizing only a fraction of the power they previously consumed.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The New York Times editorial linked to &lt;a href="http://www.nrdc.org/energy/files/settopboxes.pdf"&gt;a study by the Natural Resources Defense Council&lt;/a&gt; and as a Public Service Announcement to o &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Cable_Box_Electricity_PSA.htm" target="_blank"&gt;How Many Refrigerators Are You Running In Your House?  Youd Be Surprised!&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 20 Jul 2011 14:43:59 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Cable_Box_Electricity_PSA.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Andy Baharlias</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Seven reminders from the FTC for CAN-SPAM Act Compliance</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Seven-reminders-from-the-FTC-for-CAN-SPAM-Act-Compliance.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The FTC has put together this handy video outlining seven simple things to remember about complying with the CAN-SPAM Act:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;object id="Complying with the CAN-SPAM Act" width="495" height="312" data="http://business.ftc.gov/sites/all/themes/ftcbusinesscenter/flash/player495x312.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash"&gt;&lt;param name="swliveconnect" value="default" /&gt;&lt;param name="play" value="true" /&gt;&lt;param name="loop" value="true" /&gt;&lt;param name="menu" value="false" /&gt;&lt;param name="quality" value="autohigh" /&gt;&lt;param name="scale" value="noscale" /&gt;&lt;param name="salign" value="tl" /&gt;&lt;param name="wmode" value="opaque" /&gt;&lt;param name="version" value="7" /&gt;&lt;param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /&gt;&lt;param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /&gt;&lt;param name="src" value="http://business.ftc.gov/sites/all/themes/ftcbusinesscenter/flash/player495x312.swf" /&gt;&lt;param name="flashvars" value="vidPath=http%3A%2F%2Fbusiness.ftc.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fcan-spam_robbins.flv&amp;amp;xmlPath=h &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Seven-reminders-from-the-FTC-for-CAN-SPAM-Act-Compliance.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Seven reminders from the FTC for CAN-SPAM Act Compliance&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 11:28:28 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Seven-reminders-from-the-FTC-for-CAN-SPAM-Act-Compliance.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Streaming Video?  You Better Get to Know the VPAA</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Streaming-Video-You-Better-Get-to-Know-the-VPAA.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If you operate a website that streams video, chances are you&amp;rsquo;re not familiar with the &lt;a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2710.html"&gt;Video Privacy and Protection Act of 1988, 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect;2710 (VPPA)&lt;/a&gt;.&amp;nbsp; Recently there has been a series of lawsuits alleging violations of the VPPA involving how website operators store user programming history.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The VPPA, which was quickly drafted and swiftly passed after &lt;a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork#Supreme_Court_nomination"&gt;Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork&amp;rsquo;s video rental history was published during his confirmation hearing&lt;/a&gt;, generally prohibits the disclosure of "personally identifiable information" regarding consumers' rental or purchase of video materials.&amp;nbsp; The VPPA also creates an affirmative obligation to destroy "personally identifiable information" as soon as practicable.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As a note of historical clarification and of significance in the history of the VPPA, Bork&amp;rsquo &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Streaming-Video-You-Better-Get-to-Know-the-VPAA.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Streaming Video?  You Better Get to Know the VPAA&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 08 Jul 2011 15:29:17 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Streaming-Video-You-Better-Get-to-Know-the-VPAA.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Andy Baharlias</author><category>Entertainment Law</category></item><item><title>It Took Over A Decade, But The IRS Just Found Your PayPal Account</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/It-Took-Over-A-Decade-But-The-IRS-Just-Found-Your-PayPal-Account.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;With so many of our clients utilizing &lt;a href="http://www.paypal.com"&gt;PayPal&lt;/a&gt; as a means of making and receiving payments, we believe the following information is potentially critical to you from the standpoint of compliance with laws and strategic planning of your financial operations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/usc_sec_26_00006050---W000-.html"&gt;Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6050W&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href="#_msocom_1"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;is new legislation that will require PayPal, Amazon.com, and other financial firms that process credit or debit card payments for very small businesses to report to the IRS the total payment volume received by their customers in the USA who:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Receive more than $20,000 in gross payment volume from sales of goods or services in a single year&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ul&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; -AND-&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ul&gt;&lt;li&gt;Receive over 200 pay &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/It-Took-Over-A-Decade-But-The-IRS-Just-Found-Your-PayPal-Account.htm" target="_blank"&gt;It Took Over A Decade, But The IRS Just Found Your PayPal Account&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 06 Jul 2011 16:59:33 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/It-Took-Over-A-Decade-But-The-IRS-Just-Found-Your-PayPal-Account.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Andy Baharlias</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>FTC imposes largest civil penalty ever for violation of Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/COPPA-violation-and-FTC-fine.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;The FTC continues its enforcement activities against businesses that don't comply with their own website privacy policies.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) details what a website operator must include in a privacy policy, when and how to seek verifiable consent from a parent or guardian, and what responsibilities an operator has to protect children's privacy and safety online including restrictions on the marketing to those under 13.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Amidst allegations that a &lt;a class="logclick ct_cont" href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023036/110512playdomexhibits.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;major online game developer &lt;/a&gt;&amp;ndash; a subsidiary of Disney Enterprises, Inc. &amp;ndash; illegally collected and disclosed personal information from hundreds of thousands of children under age 13, the FTC yesterday released a &lt;a class="logclick ct_cont" href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/1023036/110512playdomconsentorder.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;consent judgment &lt;/a&gt;ag &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/COPPA-violation-and-FTC-fine.htm" target="_blank"&gt;FTC imposes largest civil penalty ever for violation of Childrens Online Privacy Protection Act&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 18 May 2011 17:57:34 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/COPPA-violation-and-FTC-fine.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>The Top Issue For Website Owners?  It's Not What You Think</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/The-Top-Issue-For-Website-Owners.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;&lt;xml&gt; &lt;/xml&gt;&lt;![endif]--&gt;&lt;!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;&lt;xml&gt; Normal  0          false  false  false    EN-US  X-NONE  X-NONE &lt;/xml&gt;&lt;![endif]--&gt;&lt;!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;&lt;xml&gt; &lt;/xml&gt;&lt;![endif]--&gt;&lt;!--[if gte mso 10]&gt;&lt;style&gt; /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;mso-style-noshow:yes;mso-style-priority:99;mso-style-parent:"";mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;mso-para-margin-top:0in;mso-para-margin-right:0in;mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;mso-para-margin-left:0in;line-height:115%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}&lt;/style&gt;&lt;![endif]--&gt; With all of the numerous issues t &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/The-Top-Issue-For-Website-Owners.htm" target="_blank"&gt;The Top Issue For Website Owners?  It's Not What You Think&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:52:16 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/The-Top-Issue-For-Website-Owners.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Yes, your website privacy policy really does matter</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Yes-your-website-privacy-policy-really-does-matter.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;We find that many website operators that collect information from their users treat their privacy policies as an afterthought.&amp;nbsp; Based on a number of recent actions from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), that would be a mistake.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;&lt;xml&gt; &lt;o:OfficeDocumentSettings&gt; &lt;o:AllowPNG /&gt; &lt;/o:OfficeDocumentSettings&gt; &lt;/xml&gt;&lt;![endif]--&gt;&lt;!--[if gte mso 9]&gt;&lt;xml&gt; &lt;w:WordDocument&gt; &lt;w:View&gt;Normal&lt;/w:View&gt; &lt;w:Zoom&gt;0&lt;/w:Zoom&gt; &lt;w:TrackMoves /&gt; &lt;w:TrackFormatting /&gt; &lt;w:PunctuationKerning /&gt; &lt;w:ValidateAgainstSchemas /&gt; &lt;w:SaveIfXMLInvalid&gt;false&lt;/w:SaveIfXMLInvalid&gt; &lt;w:IgnoreMixedContent&gt;false&lt;/w:IgnoreMixedContent&gt; &lt;w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText&gt;false&lt;/w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText&gt; &lt;w:DoNotPromoteQF /&gt; &lt;w:LidThemeOther&gt;EN-US&lt;/w:LidThemeOther&gt; &lt;w:LidThemeAsian&gt;X-NONE&lt;/w:LidThemeAsian&gt; &lt;w:LidThemeComplexScript&gt;X-NONE&lt;/w:LidThemeComplexScript&gt; &lt;w:Compatibility&gt; &lt;w:BreakWrappedTables /&gt; &lt;w:SnapToGridInCell /&gt; &lt;w:WrapTextWithPunct /&gt; &lt;w:UseAsianBreakRules /&gt; &lt;w:DontGrowAutofit /&gt; &lt; &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Yes-your-website-privacy-policy-really-does-matter.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Yes, your website privacy policy really does matter&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 15 Apr 2011 09:25:27 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Yes-your-website-privacy-policy-really-does-matter.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Entertainment Law</category></item><item><title>Social Media Legal Issues:  2 New Developments You Must Know</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Social-Media-Legal-Issues-2.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Most people would agree that online social media should be a part of any business' marketing plan.&amp;nbsp; Blogging, user feedback, RSS feeds, and other similar content can create a richer and fuller user experience that can enhance a company's brand.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;But there are two recent developments, that if not managed correctly, can create devastating consequences for the unwary website owner using such social media.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;1.&amp;nbsp; NEW FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION (FTC) GUIDELINES PROHIBIT COMPANIES FROM USING MISLEADING ADVERTISING PRACTICES ONLINE&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Are you using affiliates or other third parties to assist you in your marketing?&amp;nbsp; Part of the new &lt;a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/10/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;FTC guidelines&lt;/a&gt; indicate that &amp;ldquo;&lt;em&gt;a pos&amp;shy;i&amp;shy;tive re&amp;shy;view by a per&amp;shy;son con&amp;shy;nected to the seller &amp;ndash; or some&amp;shy;one who re&amp;shy;ceives cash or in-kind pay&amp;shy;ment to re&amp;shy;view a prod&amp;shy;uct or ser&amp;shy;vice  &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Social-Media-Legal-Issues-2.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Social Media Legal Issues:  2 New Developments You Must Know&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 30 Mar 2011 13:43:12 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Social-Media-Legal-Issues-2.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Used DVD Sales may become a thing of the past</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Used-DVD-Sales-may-become-a-thing-of-the-past.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;For producers of DVDs that lament the resale of their products on eBay and other auction websites, business may be making a turn for the better.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;A September 10, 2010 ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of &lt;a href="http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/09/10/09-35969.pdf"&gt;Vernor v. Autodesk&lt;/a&gt; determined that a software user is a licensee rather than an owner of a copy when the copyright owner: (1) specifies that the user is a licensee; (2) significantly restricts the user&amp;rsquo;s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable restrictive terms.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Since a DVD and video games are merely software, there is no reason to believe that this ruling won't also extend to resale of those items as well.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;If the DVD and video game publishers follow Autodesk&amp;rsquo;s lead, consumers may not be able to sell their old DVDs or video games.&amp;nbsp; They are HIGHLY encouraged to include terms and conditions within the product pac &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Used-DVD-Sales-may-become-a-thing-of-the-past.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Used DVD Sales may become a thing of the past&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 11:32:00 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Used-DVD-Sales-may-become-a-thing-of-the-past.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Entertainment Law</category></item><item><title>Don't delay in ousting cybersquatters</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Dont-delay-in-ousting-cybersquatters.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;If you become aware of a cybersquatter using a domain name that infringes your trademark, delay is not your friend.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The New York Times recently lost a case filed with the National Arbitration Forum (NAF) under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), in which The Times sought transfer of the DEALBOOK. COM domain from Name Administration Inc. &lt;em&gt;See The New York Times Company v. Name Administration Inc. &lt;/em&gt;(BVI), (Nat. Arb. Forum Claim No. 1349045, decided Nov. 17, 2010).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The Times began using &amp;ldquo;DealBook&amp;rdquo; as the name for a business newsletter and blog in 2001. In 2004, NAI registered and began using the DEALBOOK. COM domain to advertise online gaming and travel booking. The Times filed U.S. trademark applications for DEALBOOK in 2006 but waited until 2010 to file a UDRP complaint against NAI. In order for The Times to succeed in the UDRP claim, it had to prove each of the following:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;The domain name was iden &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Dont-delay-in-ousting-cybersquatters.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Don't delay in ousting cybersquatters&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 19 Jan 2011 10:33:55 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Dont-delay-in-ousting-cybersquatters.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Website Privacy Policies</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Website-Privacy-Policies.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;Think that all website privacy policies are the same, and copying one from a large, well-known website will cover you?&amp;nbsp; Think again.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Although there is no federal statute which governs the terms which you must include in your website privacy policy, the Federal Trade Commission (&amp;ldquo;FTC&amp;rdquo;) is concerned that your policy disclose enough about your use of information as to not be unfair or deceptive.&amp;nbsp; California, however, has provided a more specific statute entitled the Online Privacy Protection Act of 2003 (&amp;ldquo;OPPA&amp;rdquo;).&amp;nbsp; OPPA requires website operators that collect personally identifiable information about individual consumers living in California to &amp;ldquo;conspicuously&amp;rdquo; place a privacy policy on its website. Many website publishers use the OPPA requirements as a guide to determine what to include in their privacy policies.&amp;nbsp; To comply with OPPA, your privacy policy must: (i) identify the categories of personal informat &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Website-Privacy-Policies.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Website Privacy Policies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Thu, 09 Dec 2010 16:01:23 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Website-Privacy-Policies.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Hollywood ruling against advertising companies</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Hollywood-ruling.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;In an important court decision today, Disney and Warner Bros. were awarded $400,000 in damages against an advertising company funding pirate websites, finding that the company induced and contributorily infringed the studios' copyrights.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Triton Media was placing advertising services for a number of sites including free-tv-video-online.info, supernovatube.com and watch-movies.net that stream or link to unlicensed content. A Federal judge also barred Triton from deal with the sites.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;The question now is whether the studios have the stomach to go after the biggest advertising provider of them all, Google.&amp;nbsp; The cautionary tale for website operators who allow link and banner advertising on their sites is an obligation to carefully vet advertisers to determine whether they are pushing illegal content.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Hollywood-ruling.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Hollywood ruling against advertising companies&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 17:11:10 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Hollywood-ruling.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Internet Policy Task Force seeks comment on copyright enforcement issues</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Internet-Policy-Task-Force.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="class1"&gt;Hoping to answer whether the innovative spirit and freedom of the Internet can be balanced with the responsibility to protect online copyrighted works, the Department of Commerce&amp;rsquo;s Internet Policy Task Force is seeking public comment from all interested stakeholders, including copyright holders, Internet Intermediaries (such as ISPs), and consumers. The comments will inform a report that the Task Force will release, which will include policy &lt;br /&gt; recommendations on copyright enforcement issues. The Task Force hopes to arrive at policies that will: &amp;ldquo;increase benefits for rights holders of creative works accessible online but not for those who infringe on those rights; maintain robust information flows that facilitate innovation and growth of the Internet economy; and at the same time, safeguard end-user interests in freedom of expression, due process, and privacy.&amp;rdquo; Comments are due by November 19, 2010. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;span class="class1"&gt; Ma &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Internet-Policy-Task-Force.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Internet Policy Task Force seeks comment on copyright enforcement issues&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:30:46 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Internet-Policy-Task-Force.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>No damages for data breach without financial injury</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/No-damages-for-data-breach-without-financial-injury.htm</link><description>&lt;div&gt;The &lt;a href="http://www.workplaceprivacyreport.com/uploads/file/Hannafords%20Supreme%20Ct%20decision%20-%20no%20damages%20in%20breach%20cases%20for%20time%20lose%209-2010.pdf"&gt;&lt;span class="logclick ct_cont"&gt;Maine Supreme Court ruled on September 21&lt;/span&gt;, 2010&lt;/a&gt; that consumers affected by a data breach could not claim damages from the company unless they suffered uncompensated financial losses or some other tangible injury.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;The Maine Supreme Court addressed the following:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-left: 40px;"&gt;In the absence of physical harm or economic loss or identity theft, do time and effort alone, spent in a reasonable effort to avoid or remediate reasonably foreseeable harm, constitute a cognizable injury for which damages may be recovered under Maine law of negligence and/or implied contract?&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-left: 40px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;The Court ruled they do not.&amp;nbsp; It went on to say that " &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/No-damages-for-data-breach-without-financial-injury.htm" target="_blank"&gt;No damages for data breach without financial injury&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 13 Oct 2010 14:24:39 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/No-damages-for-data-breach-without-financial-injury.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Are online cookies that defy deletion legal?</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Are-online-cookies-that-defy-deletion-legal.htm</link><description>&lt;div class="segment article"&gt;&lt;p&gt;At least six new lawsuits are challenging online cookies that track Internet users&amp;rsquo; browsing habits, claiming the modern tracking tools defy or inhibit deletion.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;div style="overflow: hidden; color: #000000; background-color: transparent; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; border: medium none;"&gt;At issue is technology from &lt;a href="http://www.quantcast.com/"&gt;Quantcast&lt;/a&gt;, also targeted in the lawsuit. Quantcast created Flash cookies that track users across the web, and used them to re-create traditional browser cookies that users deleted from their computers. These &amp;ldquo;zombie&amp;rdquo; cookies came to light last year, after researchers at UC Berkeley &lt;a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1446862"&gt;documented deleted browser cookies returning to life&lt;/a&gt;. Quantcast quickly fixed the issue, calling it an unintended consequence of trying to measure web traffic accurately&lt;span&gt;.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt; &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Are-online-cookies-that-defy-deletion-legal.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Are online cookies that defy deletion legal?&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 11:47:17 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Are-online-cookies-that-defy-deletion-legal.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>When is using someone else's trademark in a domain name infringement? </title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/When-is-using-a-trademark-in-a-domain-name-infringement.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;For a variety of reasons, both legitimate and non-legitimate, domain names often contain terms which are trademarked by another party.&amp;nbsp; When is such use considered non-infringing, and thus, permissible?&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Specifically, to prove that the use of a particular domain name constitutes cybersquatting, the trademark holder must typically show that (1) it has legitimate trademark rights in the name and that the allegedly infringing domain names were identical or confusingly similar to such a name, (2) that the registrant did not have legitimate rights to the use of the name, and (3) that the registrant registered and used the domain name in bad faith.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;However, there are a number of differences in nuance between cases involving trademarks of commercial enterprises vis-&amp;agrave;-vis other trademarks. One of the key differences is that commercial enterprises often have names that are similar to each other and, as a result, numerous parties may ha &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/When-is-using-a-trademark-in-a-domain-name-infringement.htm" target="_blank"&gt;When is using someone else's trademark in a domain name infringement? &lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Tue, 14 Sep 2010 22:18:47 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/When-is-using-a-trademark-in-a-domain-name-infringement.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Technology Law</category></item><item><title>Federal Judge Dismisses Free Speech Coalition's 2257 Suit</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Federal-Judge-Dismisses-Free-Speech-Coalitions-2257-Suit.htm</link><description>&lt;p class="class2"&gt;U.S. District Court Judge Michael Baylson has granted the government's motion to dismiss the Free Speech Coalition's 18 U.S.C. &amp;sect; &amp;sect; 2257 and 2257A lawsuit.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="class2"&gt;The FSC, in its original complaint, said the revised &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/What-is-18-USC-2257-and-How-Does-it-Affect-Me.htm"&gt;18 U.S.C. &amp;sect; &amp;sect; 2257 and 2257A regulations&lt;/a&gt; are unconstitutional, as well as an unfair burden placed to producers to comply with the regulations.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="class2"&gt;Baylson, in his decision, said that "the government has a substantial interest in preventing sexual exploitation of children in the production of such depictions."Baylson rejected the FSC's case, focusing on the trade group's 4th Amendment challenge.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p class="class2"&gt;He noted "producers of such depictions have adequate  notice that their records will periodically be inspected by government officials" and that "Congress has both authorized i &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Federal-Judge-Dismisses-Free-Speech-Coalitions-2257-Suit.htm" target="_blank"&gt;Federal Judge Dismisses Free Speech Coalition's 2257 Suit&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:40:07 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/Federal-Judge-Dismisses-Free-Speech-Coalitions-2257-Suit.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Entertainment Law</category></item><item><title>FCC Policies on Indecency too Vague, Court Says</title><link>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/FCC-Policies-on-Indecency-too-Vague-Court-Says.htm</link><description>&lt;p&gt;In a victory for free speech rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit said the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC) rules on indecency are too vague and violate the First Amendment.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;On Tuesday, the appeals judges called the FCC's policy, in place since 2004, "unconstitutionally vague, creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here." The vagueness left broadcasters uncertain about what they could air, which impinged on their freedom of speech, the judges said.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;We hope this decision will ultimately carry over into other forms of media, including the Internet, to provide some form of objectivity when it comes to various forms of expression.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;You can read the full store at Information Law &lt;a href="http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/FCC-Policies-on-Indecency-too-Vague-Court-Says.htm" target="_blank"&gt;FCC Policies on Indecency too Vague, Court Says&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Jul 2010 10:49:11 EST</pubDate><guid>http://www.informationlaw.com/blog/FCC-Policies-on-Indecency-too-Vague-Court-Says.htm</guid><source url="http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml">http://www.informationlaw.com/rss-feed.xml</source><author>Dan Pepper</author><category>Entertainment Law</category></item></channel></rss>

