Ten recent internet cases

Ten Recent Internet Cases Dai Davis 1. Shetland Times Shetland News

v

This Scottish case is unusual in that unlike nuny of thtGISC’S involving the Intcrnct. it does not conccrn allegations of one comp;q~ wrongI). procuring the lnternet address of another. Instead, it is a copyright dispute revolving around the Internet practice of using “hppertext links”. These enable 311 Internet user who is issuing information at one particular Internet address to transfer automatically to another Internet site (i.c. the information provided by another person or company) mereI! b!. pressing ;Lsingle key. A h!~pertext link therefore t-nablcs case of movement on the Internet from one site to another. The Shetland Times is the main newspaper circulating in the Shetland Islands. It was founded in 18’2 and has a circulation of 1 1.000. This is quite signiAcant since the entire population of the islands is only 23,000! ‘Ilie Shetland News is a 250 page electronic nt-wspaper which was set up

Computer (’

Audit

Update

1997. $17.00 Elsevier

l

June

Science

1997

Ltd.

approximatel~~ a year fore the dispute.

be-

The dispute came to court in October 19%. Shetland News had ;I “news headline” section on its web site. It had linked that site directI>. to articles posted at the web site run bp the Shetland Times. Shetland Times allege that Shetland News was breaching Shetland Times copyright. ‘I’he

case came before the Court of Session which is the top Scottish <:ivil Court (from where the route for any appeal leads only to the House of Lords). LTnfortunately, howe\.er, the case -‘as merely one in which a temporary injunction was requested and therefore

the legal argumcnth \vcrc not as \vcll rchcarsed as they \vould be had ;I final injunction bet-n sought. The <:ourt of Session held that copy-ight infringcmcnt \v;is :irguabl~~ occurring and granted an injunction \\,hich IX~LIIKI tlic Shetland Ne\\3 from “storing or including in any scmicc operated I~!. [the Shetland Nc-w.sI on the Internet. an)’ headline. text or photograph from any edition of the Shctland Times newspaper or [the Shetland Times] Internet web site”. The legal grounds for granting the injunction must, ho\ve\a-. be qucstionablc. It is to 1~~ hoped that this cast lvill return to the court on ;iti q~plication for a final injunction when more coherent rasons kvill br given for extending (or \vithdra~ving) the injunction. 2. Harrods Ltd v UK Network Services Ltd and others This case is the first case relating to Internet \veb site addresses that has reached the I:K courts. ‘I’here is a long history of Hat-rods protecting its

t r ;I d I.!

mark

2nd

n;tinc: both in the m~c3wxs. I larrods

trade IlK and

had rcthe I :li domain nan1c “H;~rrotls.co.uli”. tlm e\w, it had frClcd to rcgistcr the cqui\7iknt 1 ‘S (wd international) domain 1l:lme “harrods.-

gistcrcd

corn”. \Y’hcn it c:Lnit- to do so. it found that it c011lcl not hccausc the clct‘cnd~1nt.s had ;ilre:itl~~ thcnlscl\Tcs registered “Ii;irl.ods.Coiii”. tlarrocls

claimtd

that

turning

~113 to

fight

the

CYre! 6. 3. American Civil Liberties Union et al. v US Attorney General

This is perhqx the most significant cahe regarding the Internet which is being litigated in the I-M. The IIS legislature passed the (:oinniunications I>ecenc!~ Act on 8th Fc+ruar~~ 19% in which it :ittemptcd

to

subject

abuse- of the Intcrnct to the criminal law. Thrw judges of the IIS District <:oLirt unaiiiniousl~~ coiiclmllled the Act as Llllcollstitutional. The judges found that thy Act was not consistent with the first amcndmcnt to the constitution kvhich protects freedom of spc-ech

in the I’S,

thcrc ~2s 3 breach of both their registered trade inark rights and finrepistcrcd trade mark rights (i.e., their rights relating to passing off). The High (km-t dwided on 9th Dcccnikr that I larrods ma-c’ s~~cccssf~il in their arguments. The iL~dgnicnt in f;ivoLIr of Harroclx m3s given in default, since the deftmdants failed to turn LIP! Wwugh the ~aluc of the Icg;ll precedent is somem-hat diminished by this

Although the!, said that the first ~iniciidn~ent is not limitless. it ~3s nc\,crtheless breached in the prcsent Act. The controls within the iie~v lag, \verc disproportioiiat~~~~ strim gent. It nia!~ hwe Ixcn difficult to distil the prccise reasoning of the judges (who a11 ga\‘e slightly diffcrrnt rc’asons in their judgments) but one of the main grounds for rejecting the Act \\a5 the \~agLlellrss of the kgislation. In addition. the!. said that the Internet was bcconiing ;I \.c’q important rncdiuni for pc~~ple to

(since the cast m2s never tiill~argued) it is nowtheless pertinent to note that the defendants’ arguments ww-e not worth>,

cschangc ideas arid this meant that it \vas difficult to justifi- control of the Internet.

justifying their and bother of

Another reason given by the court w;1s the fact

enough

CSpc’ll”’

of

that the Internet provided ;i medium for “ordinarf people to gi\xz their views and ideas. Such ordinan. people- did not norniall!, have the opportunitv to gi\e their \,icws, s’lnc.c the), were unlikely to be rich enough to own ;L tekvision or radio station or a ncwspapcr! It was thcxfore c\wi more import;int to willow LII~COI~trolled free speech on the Internet since this may be the onI?, medium where ordinary peopk can espress their ideas. 4. Church

of Spiritual Technology v A Number of Internet Access Providers

This c;isc’ in\oh.rd not only copy-ight infringcnient but also hrcach of colifidc-ntialit~. ‘I’hc plaintiff. the Church of Spiritual Technology (kvhich \nxs related to the mot-c well-known (:hurch of Scicntolog!.) held the cqy‘right in ;I number of unpublishc-cl \+wrks of I,. Ron Hubbard. One of‘ the defendants published large parts of tliesc \vorks on her home page on the Internet. The home page was stored and made available- to other users I>!. the Internet ;LCC~SS providers. The case was heard 131 ;I district court in the Netherlands on 12th March 19%. The court held that thcrc w-as no continued copyright infringement for two xisons. First, the portions of the work that was taken could bc justified a5 “citations” within the nieaning of the Dutch

Computer Audit Update (’ 1997, $17.00 Elsevier

l

June 1997 Science Ltd.

col>\,right legisl;ttion. ~~t~rthcrmorc. the lkiintiff cl;iiniccl that the \vork5 \\ c’rc’ conficlcntial hilt this \\ 3s found to bc Llntrilc. 51ncx’ t lit b~dis th3t 14x2-c’ tl1c. subjeT of tl1c C‘Ollll>lGlt of had aIrcad!. been ~liihlishctl in a I ‘S coiirt C.ISc’ ‘l‘hc c’;1sc’ against the Illtcrnct ;~cc‘c’ss lx-o\klers 11;Is ;&x) flawed since the ci)iirI held that the Intcrnc’t :icc‘c’ss l>ro\,idcrs c.oiilcl not ix hc-Id liable tar cop!.right infringe ntc’ii1 Ix tlic suhscribc-r-s. I‘hcrc Gxs ;i lx)ssihlc csc‘clNion to this rule \\,licrc ciit t iicrc wxs 3 clear infringcincnt xncl the x~~3s pro\idcr hxl been \f xncd h! the cop!.right 0\43ier th:N :iction ~~~oiild 13~ t,ilien against the ;icc‘css pro\klcr. Since tht-rc v ;is ii0 clear ciit infi-ingcnlcnt in thr lxcsc3x c;~sc’. tll;it c.sccl>tion clid not ;lly’1!. 5. State

v Lars Licht

.A\ tllc ii;m~ might siiggust. this c;isc’ \\xs SWYXIibh. It \\.;I5 clecidcd on 22ntl t:cbruar!. IO96 b!, tlic Siil>rcinc (:oiirt of Sb.cclc>11.‘l’hc C;lsC’ \1’3S 011~ of c~op~v-ight infringcnient in L\ hicli the clcfcnclant. hlr 1.1ch1.

\%.ilS ;lccllsd

of

;I

criniinxl offcncc by lxrnlitting conil~uter softn-arc tll;lt Ixilongcxl to ;i third p.irt! to hc iil~loadcd onto ~llld

slhscqllclltly

tlo\Tll-

Ioadccl from the bulletin Ix)xcI sc-n,icc \vhich ~v;is r(lii Ix. him. ‘l‘hc- c‘;isc’ ~~3s iniportant in that it dctcrmint-cl LLhcthcr ;I bull&n board

I

Computer Audit Update l June 1997 I 1997. $17 CC Elsevier Science Ltd.

on.ncr co~ild be lixbk thcsc circiinistxiccs spite the fkt th;it lie not acti\~cl!, pcrniittcd infringing topics of lx-0gr:uns to Ix niadc. ‘I’llC defc11&mt

clLritted that

IlC

on

the

COllld liable

in tlchad thr thy

\%‘;ls ac-

grounds not

be

Lintlcr the cop!x-ight legisl;Nion of S~vcdc3 nicrel!, Iy taking ;I lxissi\.c role ;~nd allo\+ing thircl partics to ;iccc’ss his bulletin board scr\icc. It ~~3s onI) if hc liarl taken positive nicxsiires to lxrmit the col3yright infringcnicnt that hr crimin:tll!~

~v0~1ld lx

liable.

The court dccrec-cl that it iii+. Ix clifficiilt to tak action xgainst 2 bulletin !x)ard ow.ncr \3k) takes insufficient active nicisiires to lx-c\.cnt ~iploading ancl do~~~nloading of the coniputcr programs in hrc-ach of cop!Q$it. hlorco\.cr. it ~~iild lx l>cr\‘crse that sonic’onc \vho takes sonic measures to lxcvcW cop!ing MWLI~CI IXJ at ;I grcatcr risk than soniconc w%o. ;ks in the lx-cscnt c;isc. hacl tahcn none. At the saint- tinic, the court ~icknowlc-tlgcd that the result of the cast \\3s that copyright owiic’rs ~voiild lost- cffccti\rc nic;ins to protect the-ir Ivarks. 6. Peinet O’Brien

Inc v Kevin

This wxs ;I <:anatlian GISC concerning Kevin O’Rricn lx-hi had niaintaincd ;I hiisincss Lincler the- nainc “Islantl Scr\.iccs Netw-(x-k”. The plaintiffs. Pcinet Inc. had the lnttfrnet clomain nxnr “lxinct.lx.lx”. The!, claimecl that the

dcfc11cl;111t’s LISC of the cloni;~in nanic “lxinct” ~vo~ilcl lx confiising \\ith their o~vn corporate n;~nic’ and their o\\.ii cloniain 1711nc. ‘I‘hc d~f~nd;lllt \v;ts, like- the l3laintiff. ;in Intcrnct ;iccc’ss lx-o\idc-r. The plaintiff :tllegt-cl th;lt the clefrndant hacl infringed its iinrcgistcrcd tradcinark rights in the n3nic “Pcinct”. Ho\ve\,cr. the coiirt held that the +intiff hacl not pro\,ed that it \v;is likel!. to Iose any good\\ill. ‘I’hc- court b\‘;ls not persuadcd that thcrc w;is likeI!. to be an)- confiision. Ind~x_~l, thcrc wxi no cvi-

dence of xtual confiision. despite the fact that the d~fclltlallts

using the “pein~t”.

had

I,cc-11

domain

xinic’

‘I’ht- c;1sc alqxxs to havt- lxxn wc;ilil~~ qLic_cl b), both partics ancl ant’ of the cxxnnicnts the court n&e w;ls th;lt the plaintiff had fiiikd to propfx-I!- c’xpl;iin the Internet and Internet jargon to the court! The coin-t s~mcxl to hold this fact ag;tinst the plaintiff when giving its judgment!

7. Intermatic Incorporated v Dennis ToepptX1

trade mark “<;oIdM;iil”. Although tlic. pl;iintiffb m~c’rt’ lxtsccl in Llissouri, the

clcfcnckinta

catccl

on

3

I\ crc’

lo-

site

at

u.ch

lkrkelc!.. (Xifornki. The \\.cl> site :idclrcss \\‘;is “www .~~~l~~r~olcl.~otii”. Of course’. l>c’ol3lc throughout the ~1orld (inclucling those in the State of Rlissouri) xxx+scd this \Vcb site, \\.liicli \\x ;nail;iblc to all users of tlic Intcrnct. In 2 prcliiiiinx!~ judgment on the issue’. the court hcld th:it Xlissouri’s “long-arm” statute dicl lxrmit the c;isc’ to lx tried iti 3lissouri. lntcrmxtic Iiicorporatctl ret&c-cl to lxiy xicl instcxl took Ixocecdings in the I’M to rcquirc Mr ‘focl~pc~i to relcxsc the

right to u.4~ tlic n;iiiic.‘. Tlic court

domain

did not lla\.v in771111 troiiI3I~ in holtling that Ititermatic \\w :i fmi0~1s mark and thdt. siiicc it had lxcn usccl csclusi\.cl\for o\.cr 50 \‘cxs I>\, Intcrliiatic Incc;rporat& coiild not I,C “:icquircd” I?!, hlr ‘l’oclq3cli in this manner. ,\l r ‘I’oqy~c’ii 1~3s ordertxi to rc-lcaw tlic tlomain Ilaill~ to Interimtic Inwrlmrxt~cl.

8. Maritz Inc v CyberGold Inc ‘l‘liis cxsc’ \\.;Is dccicktl tl1v 19th ALlgLlSt I996

on

tlic,

for

1:s District

MissoLiri.

I>)-

Tlic c;isc is inin that it is xi of the so-c;lllcd

twcsting csallll~lc

“long-arm” certain

Court

states

Icgislation in the

of I[S,k

The I3l;iintiff. Maritz, cl:Linicd that thcrc nxs ;iii infringemc-nt of his

l‘hc- 1’S siilwc’iiic court iil3hc-lcl the- con\.iction of ;I lo\vcr court in thcsc circuillst;lticcs. ‘I‘hc court st:ltcd that the (moralit).) standwd th;it shouIcl be

applied 01‘ the

\\xs

tlic

stanclm_l

l3lacc wlicrc the trial took pkicc. i.c. the stanclard of the state \Vlicrc the hullctin boxcl contents \f’crc tlom-nloadctl.

Since this \\2~ onI!. ;i prclimin;ir~~ decision on k~lic4icr the- court of Missouri had jurisdiction. the substantive issue (of \Ihether thcrc is ;I trxk mark infringcmc3it ) has !.ct to Ix clcciclcd.

9. United States v Robert Thomas and Coleen Thomas This ~1 ;IS another c~iiiiplc of the courts of the 1’S,\ lia\,ing to cl c t c’ r iii i ii c’ \\.licrc the prolxr jurisdiction for Intcrnct clislxitcs \V;ls. In this pxrticular C’lW ‘.

1 ;I bulletin lxm-cl nxs run in (Xforni;~ lx. ,\lr

;md hlrs Thomas. ‘IliC~ I>LIIIctin lxm-cl contained pornograplii~ m~tcrial. ‘I’lie material dicl not infi-ingc

tlic la\\3 of poriiograpli~~ in (hlifornia hut nx.4 an obsccnc image \vitliin tlic poriiogr;q~li~~ laws of the state

of

13Lillctin mm

‘I’cllllt3sc~. l~oard

operator

prosecuted

nc’sscc’

for

transportation niatfdil.

‘I‘llC in

‘I’en-

inter-state of

olx_wie

10. ProCD Inc v Zeidenberg hltllougll this case rc’~d~13 xound tlic cnforceability of ;i shrink nxip licencc.

it is nc\.crthelcss

of into-rest f‘rolii ;iti Internc’t point of \icw. I’ro(:I>

spent

;I sulwaii-

tial sum (in cscc’ss ot S 1 Om ) coml>iling ;I n;ition-\+klc telel3honc d;ltalxisc iii the I1nitcd States. It clistributcd ;I cl;it:ilxisc on <:I> and l>criiiittccl the gcncral l>ul,lic to purchas*c it for 5150. Hiisillc’sst’s b’c’rc’ su1>13Iic.cl b4tli coI3ic3 of the <:I>. but ;lt 2 higher topic-s which

lx-ice. L\ c’rc

Computer Audit Update (‘8 1997, $17.00 Elsevier

The clis-

l

June 1997 Science Ltd.

Information Security Technical Report A quarterly security technical report addressing YOUR OWN security problems in-depth Frorn a jolrnt ~n~t~at~vebetween [producers

of COMPSECI.

European tancy

computer

techrilcal

W’li;iI Zcidcnlx-rg 2~ 25 to piircli;isc tlic

dicl con-

slimcr product :md then form ;I lmsincss in order 10 rcst.11 the product 1,) :.illow3ng ;iccc’ss to it over the Intmict. This uxs ;I hrc;icli of the terms of the shrink n-r;113 licencc. PrcKII) sought an injunc-

report

1nformat:on

consul-

a unique

new

- each issue probing a particular

security

l

InternetVTCP;IP

0

Open

l

Physical

l

security

Zergo Ltd. comes

EAT

and the

qddresslng

vltal problem

Security

Svsterns Security

l

Smartcard

l

PGP DES & RSA

a

Windows

EDI Security

l

FIrewall Perspectives X 400 Securltv

of

Developments

Developments

Layer Security

0

aspect

areas like

95 Windows

NT Secunty l

/s_;ues

WARP Security

rion to stop %c-idcnberg I3rc;icliing the ternis of tlic shrink \12xp licence. ‘I’lic- c;ix cainc bcforc the sc\xmtli circuit cwrt of ;ippc:ll \vliich lick1 that tlic shrink \vtq licenctm’;is c-nforcc;lblc ;I 11tl ccoi~lcl Ix usccl to lxwxfnt :/.c idenbcrg from doing lt\,llat lit intciidcd. ‘Tlic c;iw i4 iiiiportmit not least I>c.ca~~sc it is the first to ~LIIC.dircctl~~ on tlic cnforcc.hilit!~ of ;i shrink \\xil> liccncc. It sl10uld lx notcxl that rclc-\mt l;Lb~ iii the Ilh: is raclic;ill~~ different from tlut in tlic I ‘Sh. ‘I’herefort-. \f%cthc-r this prcccdent \\wLllcl IlOld all!’ swa\’ ;it .ill in the L’ti is doLihtfLii.

Learn to he/p yourself, new pitfalls.

and be

prepared

Each lsslie of tiie I/~fo~:n,itm Security Technica/ Repculdewtes Itself to a specific recerlt or newly emerging ITsecurIty Issue with Input from a team of internationally respected consultants Delalleci ;ilxlys~s of the issues provides a keen insight into the problelns and enables the reader to deter mine and implement the necessary rneasures to avoid future pitfalls Reserve

your Information

pack now by filling out and returning

the form below Please send me further fletails including forthcorning new Inioimalion Secuii& Technica/ Repoil series. Name PosItIon Organlsatlori Address state

Post code:zlp

COUmV

E-mall

Tel

Fax

N&Ire

of Business

Return to: Alex Verhoeven, Elsevier Advanced Technology P 0 Box 150, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 IAS, UK. Tel: +44 1865 843829. Fax: + 44 1865 843971 E-mail: a.verhoeveniu el.sevierco.uk

I

A

Computer

Audit Update

( 1997. $17.00 Elsevler

l

June 1997

Science

Ltd.

for potential

topics

trotn the