Archive | Internet

Looking for a Job in Media Law?

By on September 18, 2013 in Copyright, FCC, First Amendment, Internet, Journalism, Privacy

jobsLooking for a job can be time consuming and frustrating.  Often the best opportunities are found through networking and word of mouth.  But what if you are a student or recent grad? Or are trying to change fields or areas of practice and you don’t have a network?  Breaking into a new field, or even trying to find new opportunities in a field you already occupy, can be challenging.  This is why the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy has created its new media law and policy Job Center.

We Bring Our Network to You

Over the years, the UNC Center for Media Law and Policy has a built up a large (and growing) network of media law and policy minded folks and they are often looking for people just like you.  From an undergraduate internship at the Brookings Institution to a director position at Harvard’s Digital Initiative our network of contacts are constantly making us aware of openings and opportunities in the field of media law and policy.  Our Job Center database brings that network to you.  For free.  Just like that.

Easy to use

Not only does our database instantly plug you into our network of contacts and opportunities it is easy to use. You can browse by job type or category or use our advanced search feature to search by location, keyword, or practice area. Looking for a fellowship? Bam. Got it: Fellowships. How about an internship? Yep, that too: Internships.  An academic teaching position? Also covered: Academic – Journalism and Academic – Law.

Wide Variety

Don’t be deceived by the few examples of categories I just offered in the previous paragraph.  There are job opportunities from almost every field even remotely under the media law and policy umbrella.  IP, Copyright, Photo Journalism, Broadcast, FTC listings, Cyber Law, Trademark—you name it there are job opportunities.  Whatever you are looking for, chances are there is something for you on our page.  Here is a list of some of my favorite recent postings:

William Smith is a 2L at the University of North Carolina School of Law

0

States enact social media privacy laws protecting employees, students

By on September 17, 2013 in Internet, Privacy

In August, New Jersey became the twelfth state to pass a law prohibiting employers from asking employees for their social media usernames and passwords. Read more about the New Jersey law here.

Some states, including California, Michigan, and Illinois, also prohibit schools from requiring students to disclose their social media passwords. Illinois’s Right to Privacy in the School Setting Act takes effect January 1, 2014.

0

District Court Enjoins FilmOn X

By on September 9, 2013 in Copyright, Internet

filmon_logoLast Thursday, September 5, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued a preliminary injunction against FilmOn X, a for-profit company that streams broadcasters’ content—without permission—over the Internet to subscribers. The injunction prevents FilmOn X from operating in nearly every jurisdiction in the country and serves as a major setback for the company founded by billionaire Alki David. The ruling is the latest plot twist in a drama playing out between broadcasters and companies that retransmit their content over the Internet without consent.

The District Court found the preliminary injunction warranted after concluding the plaintiffs (that is, the broadcasters who initiated the suit) would be likely to succeed in their claim that FilmOn X violated their right to perform copyrighted works publicly. The ruling is in stark contrast to a nearly identical case (WNET v. Aereo, Inc.) the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on last April. The Second Circuit held that Aereo, a company that operates a similar service to FilmOn X, transmitted “unique copies of broadcast television programs” that are sent to single users at their direction, not to the public at large. Thus, the Court of Appeals ruled that Aereo’s service does not violate the public performance right.

FilmOn X, much like Aereo, uses “minute” antennas to capture the television signals broadcasters are required by law to transmit over-the-air for free. Once captured, the company retransmits the signals over the Internet to subscribers, who have the option of watching content live or (if using the company’s DVR service) at a later time.

By devoting a dedicated antenna to each subscriber, FilmOn X contended that it sent private transmissions over the Internet and thus did not violate the public performance right. Unlike in Aereo, however, the District Court did not find the argument persuasive.

Central to the court’s ruling was its interpretation of the “transmission clause,” located in § 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976. Under the transmission clause, a work is performed “publicly” when it is transmitted “by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.” In concluding that the transmit clause applied to FilmOn X, the court wrote:

FilmOn X transmits (i.e., communicates from mini-antenna through servers over the Internet to a user) the performance (i.e., an original over-the-air broadcast of a work copyrighted by one of the Plaintiffs) to members of the public (i.e., any person who accesses the FilmOn X service through its website or application) who receive the performance in separate places and at different times (i.e. at home at their computers or on their mobile devices). FilmOn X violates §§ 101 and 106(4) of the 1976 Act, meaning that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their copyright infringement claim.

Under the District Court’s ruling, FilmOn X is enjoined from operating its service in every jurisdiction excluding the Second Circuit, where the decision in Aereo serves as controlling precedent.

Many commentators believe it will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide the legality of services like FilmOn X and Aereo.

We’ll keep you posted on the developments. Until then, here is the link to the District Court’s ruling.

Kevin Delaney is a 2L at the University of North Carolina School of Law and a second-year master’s student at the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

 

0
0

Unintended Targets: The NSA’s bulk email collection and Obama’s use of the word “targeting”

By on August 23, 2013 in Internet, Privacy, Transparency

A Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion released yesterday shed more light on how the National Security Agency collects Americans’ email data, highlighting the disconnect between the NSA’s collection practices and the Obama Administration’s characterization of email surveillance under the PRISM program.

The FISA Court opinion held that methods used by the NSA from 2007 to 2011 of collecting email data — including the content of email subject lines, senders, and times of transmission — violated the Fourth Amendment and Federal statutes. While the NSA can collect emails involving foreign senders and recipients under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, it cannot collect purely domestic emails.

Until 2011, the NSA’s collection of emails involved collecting “bundles” of emails from individuals’ inboxes, failing to separate the purely domestic emails bundled with the “targeted” emails involving non-U.S. persons. Basically, the NSA was collecting screenshots of individuals’ inboxes when only one of many emails in the screenshot was the subject of the investigation.

Since details of the PRISM email surveillance program were leaked in June, President Obama has repeatedly told Americans not to worry because “the NSA cannot target your emails.” While the President has never clarified what “targeting” means, this opinion makes it clear that, at least before 2011, the fact that Americans’ emails were not “targeted” doesn’t mean they were not collected.

Several proposed amendments to key sections of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, including a bill that failed in a close House vote last month, would prohibit the “bulk” collection of data. These amendments would require the NSA to show that someone is the subject of an investigation before it collects that person’s data.

Natasha Duarte is a 2L at the University of North Carolina School of Law and a first-year master’s student at the UNC School of Journalism and Mass Communication.

0