Adsense HTML

Smirnoff Responsible for Comments of Users on Facebook

The Board considered that the Facebook site of an advertiser is a marketing communication tool over which the advertiser has a reasonable degree of control and could be considered to draw the attention of a segment of the public to a product in a manner calculated to promote or oppose directly or indirectly that product. The Board determined that the provisions of the Code apply to an advertiser’s Facebook page. As a Facebook page can be used to engage with customers, the Board further considered that the Code applies to the content generated by the advertisers as well as material or comments posted by users or friends.”


See Diageo Australia 

Computer Patent - Patentable Subject Matter

A system claim which includes as a limitation a computer to perform steps in a method is ineligible for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. §101 as a claim to an abstract idea because the computer functions solely as an obvious mechanism to solve a problem quickly, the Federal Circuit held July 26, 2012. Bancorp Services, L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.), Fed. Cir., No. 2011-1467, 7/26/12.

The asserted patents are directed to systems and methods for administering and tracking the value of life insurance policies in separate accounts. The Federal Circuit affirmed a district court summary judgment that the patents are ineligible for patent protection because the claimed computer components are no more than objects that facilitate the operation of claimed methods directed to an abstract idea. It held that a machine, system, medium, or the like may in some cases be equivalent to an abstract mental process for purposes of patent ineligibility.

To read the Court's opinion in this case, click here.

Online Auctions - Terms Unfair

See Malam v Graysonline, Rumbles Removals and Storage (General) [2012] NSWCTTT 197
  1. The CCAAC then went on to recommend that “online transactions (including online auctions such as eBay) should be covered by the national statutory consumer guarantees in the same way as in-store transactions” (Recommendation 10.1, page 111).
  2. In the light of this recommendation, and the clear intention of the Australian Consumer Law to provide wide ranging protection for consumers, I consider that the purpose of provision will best be met by limiting auctions to physical auctions where the consumer does have the opportunity to inspect the goods before purchasing, analogous to in-store transactions.
  3. In the circumstances, I am not satisfied this arrangement was a sale by auction and therefore s. 54 and 55 of the Australian Consumer Law apply.

Google's Top Lawyer: Some Apple Inventions are Commercially Essential, Should Be Made Into Standards

Apple CEO Tim Cook has said that he wants other companies to "invent their own stuff", and that Apple shouldn't be "inventor for the world". 

Google General Counsel Kent Walker disagrees, and this month wrote a letter to the US Senate Judiciary Committee arguing that commercial inventions that impact "consumer welfare" should be just as important as technical patents.

See Here

e-book pricing

On Friday, the Department of Justice responded to the over 800 comments filed in its settlement with a group of publishers over e-book pricing. The Department responded as part of the Tunney Act proceeding for the settlement, while it is in the midst of litigating the same Complaint against Apple and publishers that did not settle.
The response can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f285300/285315.pdf.
The comments are posted online and can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/apple/index.html

Apple v. Samsung

The Apple v. Samsung patent case restarted in Federal Court of Australia today.  See Sydney Morning Herald

U.S. Federal Circuit Responds to Supreme Court on Patent Eligibility

Reversing a summary judgment of patent ineligibility under 35 U.S.C.§101, the Federal Circuit in a 2-1 decision responded to the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Prometheus v. Mayo with the caution that patent eligibility must be decided by examining claims for specific, concrete applications of the ideas behind an invention.  CLS Bank v. Alice Corp., Fed. Cir., No. 11-1301, 9 July 2012.  Alice Corporation Pty Ltd is an Australian corporation.

According to the Court, if, after taking all of the claim recitations into consideration, it is not “manifestly evident” that a claim is directed to a patent ineligible abstract idea, that claim must not be deemed for that reason to be inadequate under Section 101.


Judge Prost dissented, writing that the majority failed to follow the Supreme Court’s Prometheus ruling by not inquiring whether the claims include an “inventive concept” and by devising its own patentable subject matter test.

The challenged patents in this case are directed to a computerized trading platform for exchanging obligations in which a trusted third party settles obligations between a first and second party so as to eliminate “settlement risk.”  The district court granted a summary judgment motion that the claims were not patent eligible because they are directed to an abstract idea.  On appeal the Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the system, method, and media claims are directed to practical applications of an invention falling within the categories of patent eligible subject matter defined by Section 101.

The “abstract ideas” test for patent eligibility has become a serious problem because of its “abstractness,” Judge Linn observed.  He noted that several Supreme Court decisions have discussed the concept of “preemption” to elucidate the “abstract idea” exception to patent eligibility.

However, he added that Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 188 (1981), addressed claims containing a mathematical equation, and held that they only foreclosed the general use of the equation in conjunction with all of the other steps in the claimed process.  Thus, the essential concern, according to the Court, is not preemption per se, but the extent to which preemption results in the foreclosure of innovation.

With respect to implementing inventions in computer hardware or software, the court stated that the “mere implementation” on a computer of an otherwise ineligible abstract idea will not render the invention patent eligible, citing Fort Props. Inc. v. Am. Master Lease LLC, 671 F.3d 1317 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

However, Judge Linn wrote that a machine limitation can render a method patent eligible where the machine imposes a meaningful limit on the scope of the claim and where it plays a significant part in permitting the claimed method to be performed, citing SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  A machine is insufficient, he added, if it functions solely as an obvious mechanism for permitting a solution to be achieved more quickly, i.e., through the utilization of a computer for performing calculations.  A claim that is drawn to a specific way of doing something with a computer is likely to be patent eligible, Judge Linn explained, whereas a claim to nothing more than the idea of doing that thing on a computer may not. He added the following:
While the use of a machine in these limitations is less substantial or limiting than the industrial uses examined in Diehr (curing rubber) or Alappat (a rasterizer), the presence of these limitations prevents us from finding it manifestly evident that the claims are patent ineligible under § 101. … In such circumstances, we must leave the question of validity to the other provisions of Title 35.

To read the Court’s opinion and the dissenting opinion, click here.

New gTLDs by Australian Companies

Here is my list of new gTLDs applied for by Australian companies, Universities and governments.  There were a number of Victorian Universities who applied, plus the NSW Government and the Victorian Government.  Commonwealth Bank made three applications, as did iSelect.  A number will be contested (as marked in bold) below.

  • AFL
  • AMP
  • ANZ
  • AUSPOST
  • BEST
  • BOND
  • BOOK
  • CANCERRESEARCH
  • CBA
  • CEO
  • COMMBANK
  • NETBANK
  • COURSES
  • FILM
  • GLOBALX
  • IINET
  • KRED
  • LATROBE
  • COMPARE
  • SELECT
  • ISELECT
  • CPA
  • MELBOURNE
  • MONASH
  • NAB
  • UBANK
  • PHYSIO
  • RMIT
  • SALON
  • SBS
  • TAB
  • TENNIS
  • SEEK
  • SELECT
  • SEVEN
  • STUDY
  • SYDNEY
  • WEBJET
  • WOODSIDE
  • YELLOWPAGES
There are a number of multiple applications for the one gTLD, such as ART, AUCTION, BOOK, BET, BABY, HOTEL, HOT, GROUP, GREEN, GAME, CLOUD, CLUB, AUDIO, AUTO, SECURITY, FREE, RIP, MOBILE, MUSIC, NEWS, NOW, ONLINE, PIZZA, PLAY, POKER, PROPERTY, RACING, RADIO, RESTAURANT, RUGBY, SALE, SCHOOL, SEARCH, SHOP, SITE, VIP and SUCKS.  There was one PORN application and two SEX applications (and one SEXY application).

There were two applications from New Zealand, KIWI and RIP.

Amazon made over 70 applications for words in English, and a bunch more in non-Roman text.  Google made about 100 applications, under the name Charleston Road Registry Inc..  Facebook did not make any applications.

Reveal Day



Tomorrow is gTLD Reveal Day


It is anticipated that 1,900 applications have been made for new gTLDs.  Information will be posted here tomorrow.

For background about the gTLD process and new gTLDs, see: B and T; and Mallesons.

What should you know for Reveal Day.  See "10 things" article. 

See also ICANN and here and WIPO LRO page.

Here's $10 off at Shoebuy.com

Save on shoes, accessories, handbags and apparel at Shoebuy.com. We've got something for everyone and for a limited time, you can save $10 on that special something. Valid on purchase of $50 or more.

Kim Dotcom on the offensive

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10809796 


Papers state the FBI allegations "turn a blind eye to laws ... that provide a safe harbour" for businesses which work to remove any material which infringes copyright. It stated there was no law which allowed cloud storage companies to face criminal charges over the actions of users.

Does MegaUpload have a DMCA defence?

Google Posts Data as to copyright takedown notices

Google has decided to share its insights on copyright abuse amid a loudening outcry for a crackdown against online piracy that media companies have claimed is collectively costing them billions of dollars each year. The backlash inspired a piece of get-tougher legislation SOPA, that had the backing of most major music and move studios. The proposal caused dismay among major internet companies who feared the law would stifle free speech and innovation. The bill was abandoned four months ago after fierce high-tech opposition that included a one-day blackout of popular websites such as Wikipedia and an online petition drive spearheaded by Google.

See Google Data and SMH article

Privacy Inquiries re Google

From The New York Times:
Google Privacy Inquiries Get Little Cooperation

All sorts of private Internet communications were casually scooped up as Google Street View cars photographed the world’s streets.

http://nyti.ms/Kx4aE2

Wrap up - current issues

John will be travelling interstate on Monday, so Carly will be taking his place for the last lecture.

This lecture will focus on current issues, using Facebook as a marketing case study.  Have a look at the following articles to start with:

IPO articles and here

marketing - 10 examples

marketing tips

facebook marketing bible

What are the risks of using social media as a marketing tool?

Online contracting, creating websites

e-commerce
How is contracting online different to other transactions?  
What special regulations are there / should there be to address these differences?
Consider:

Ensuring enforceability of online contracts
Consider the differences between shrink wrap, click wrap and browse wrap agreements.
Where do website terms of use fit it?  Consider some examples and the similarities / differences between them.
What is the impact of the unfair contracts legislation?


Establishing and operating websites
What do you need to be aware of (having regard to previous lectures)?
Australian Government's suggestions

Copyright lecture

In this lecture we will focus on a number of important copyright decisions in Australia.  However, you should also be familiar with:

Copyright Act, and amending legislation relevant to the Internet - Computer Programs, Digital Agenda, 2004 amendments

Law reform

Australian cases - Kazaa (piracy), MP3s4free (piracy), Fairfax (newspaper headlines), Ice TV (compilations/databases), Telstra (computer generated compilations), iiNet (ISP liability) and TV Now

US cases - Napster, Grokster 

Recent news items - NSW police/Micro Focus, 92 year old pirate

Copyright/licensing bodies - Electronic Frontiers Australia, Creative Commons

How to Muddy Your Tracks on the Internet

Legal and technology researchers estimate that it would take about a month for Internet users to read the privacy policies of all the Web sites they visit in a year. So in the interest of time, here is the deal: You know that dream where you suddenly realize you’re stark naked? You’re living it whenever you open your browser.
...
“Companies like Google are creating these enormous databases using your personal information,” said Paul Hill, senior consultant with SystemExperts, a network security company in Sudbury, Mass. “They may have the best of intentions now, but who knows what they will look like 20 years from now, and by then it will be too late to take it all back.”
See NY Times

info graphic - The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA)


A Technical Examination of SOPA and PIPA 
By Spencer Belkofer. LLRX.com, April 29, 2012 
SOPA is the Stop Online Piracy Act, and PIPA is the Protect IP Act.

Copyright Loss For Optus TV


National Rugby League Investments Pty Limited v Singtel Optus Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 59 (27 April 2012)

"The two primary issues raised in the appeals can be stated shortly. The first is: When a cinematograph film (or copy) and a sound recording (or copy) were made when a television broadcast of one of the AFL or NRL matches was recorded for a subscriber, who, for the purposes of the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) was the maker of that film, sound recording or copy? Was it Optus or the subscriber (or both of them jointly)? The primary judge’s answer to this was that the maker was the subscriber.

Ours is a different conclusion. The maker was Optus or, in the alternative, it was Optus and the subscriber. It is unnecessary for present purposes to express a definitive view as between the two. Optus could be said to be the maker in that the service it offered to, and did, supply a subscriber was to make and to make available to that person a recording of the football match he or she selected. Alternatively Optus and the subscriber could be said to be the maker for Copyright Act purposes as they acted in concert for the purpose of making a recording of the particular broadcast which the subscriber required to be made and of which he or she initiated the automated process by which copies were produced. In other words, they were jointly and severally responsible for the act of copying. That is our preferred view.

The second question is: If Optus’ act in making such a film would otherwise constitute an infringement of the copyright of AFL, NRL or Telstra, can Optus invoke what we would inaccurately, but conveniently, call the “private and domestic use” defence of s 111 of the Act? The primary judge did not have to consider this, given his answer to the first question.

Our answer is that Optus cannot either as maker alone or as a maker with a subscriber bring itself within the scope of the s 111 exception on its proper construction."

Domain names

Discussion for this week's lecture will include:
  • what is a domain name? 
  • who ultimately controls domain names - what roles do ICANN, auDA play? 
  • what legal rights do you have in a domain name?
  • how much are domain names worth?
  • what is cybersquatting?
  • how can you resolve domain name disputes?  Please be familiar with the elements of the UDRP and the auDRP.  Are these processes preferable to court?  What are the advantages and disadvantages of each option?
  • how would you go about judging a domain name dispute under the UDRP?  Are the decisions consistent?
  • what other policies and legal issues impact on an entitlement to domain names?
  • new GTLDs

German Court case fails to settle YouTube copyright controversy

A German court has ruled that YouTube must erase seven contested videos over copyright issues. However, the decision has failed to settle the protracted copyright row raging on the Internet. Hamburg's State Court ruled on Friday that YouTube will have to take seven videos offline, including "Rivers of Babylon" by Boney M.

The verdict strengthens the position of Germany's royalty collections body GEMA which has been battling Google-owned YouTube over copyright issues for years.

The last agreement expired in 2009 and the conflicting parties have since been at loggerheads over the proper method to collect copyright fees.  However, Friday's verdict is not the landmark ruling which some had hoped would once and for all settle the contentious issue of copyright protection in the Internet.

Limited culpability
The Hamburg court decided that Internet platforms like YouTube are not directly liable for the breach of copyrights committed by users uploading protected material. However, the platform is now obliged to "deactivate immediately any illegal videos" once alerted by those holding the copyright.

Notably, the ruling does not oblige YouTube to check all content that has already been uploaded to its site – a key GEMA demand.

The judges said YouTube was not the main culprit because it does not upload or steal any content. Rather it facilitated the copyright breaches by offering and operating the online platform.

In order to prevent further copyright breaches, the judges called on YouTube to employ specific software capable of detecting songs in videos.

Business Method Patents

For tonights class, in addition to the reading listed below, the following recent Australian Patent Office decisions are relevant:

Jail time for Facebook Photos


A New South Wales man has been jailed for six months for posting nude pictures of his former lover on Facebook, Fairfax media has reported.
In the first social networking-related conviction in Australian history, Ravshan ”Ronnie” Usmanov posted six nude photos of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook shortly after they broke up.
The photos showed his ex-girlfriend "nude in certain positions and clearly showing her breasts and genitalia."
"I put the photos up because she hurt me and it was the only thing (I had) to hurt her," Usmanov, 20, was quoted by the Sydney Morning Herald as telling the police.
According to the report, Usmanov also emailed his girlfriend after posting the pictures, saying, “Some of your photos are now on Facebook."
The woman, who cannot be identified, requested Usmanov to take the pictures down but called the police when he refused.
In 2010, a New Zealand man was sentenced to four months in jail for posting a naked photo of his ex-girlfriend on Facebook.
His act was described as one of "irresponsible drunken rage" by presiding judge, who also said, "Technology can't be used in this way. You would do incalculable damage to someone's reputation."


Source:  Yahoo website

iiNet High Court of Australia Decison - iiNet Wins

The High Court of Australia today handed down judgment in favour of iiNet in the copyright appeal, dealing with whether an ISP should be liable for copyright infringements of the ISP's customers.  Unanimous dismissal. French, Crennan and Kiefel in one judgment and separate judgment of Gummow and Hayne also dismissing appeal.

"Today the High Court dismissed an appeal by a number of film and television companies from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The High Court held that the respondent, an internet service provider, had not authorised the infringement by its customers of the appellants' copyright in commercially released films and television programs."

Summary:
http://www.hcourt.gov.au/assets/publications/judgment-summaries/2012/hcasum16_2012_04_20_iiNet.pdf

Judgment:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2012/16.html

My commentary in The Age

e-book Price Fixing?


Last week, the United States Department of Justice and 16 U.S. States sued Apple and several publishers alleging a conspiracy to raise retail prices for e-books. 

In the Southern District of New York, the Department sued Apple, Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Macmillan, and Penguin, reaching a settlement with Hachette, HarperCollins, and Simon & Schuster.  The Department’s complaint and proposed final judgment can be found here: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/applebooks.html
The Department’s press release and statements by Attorney General Holder and Acting Assistant Attorney General Pozen can be found here:

In the Western District of Texas, the a number of States sued Apple, Macmillan, Simon & Schuster, and Penguin. The States'  redacted complaint can be found here: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/newspubs/releases/2012/041112ebooks_complaint.pdf 

The States were led by the Texas AG and the Connecticut AG. The States did not sue HarperCollins or Hachette, but stated they had reached agreement with the two publishers on restitution and injunctive releif.  Here is the Texas AG’s press release: https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4026

Class 7: Liability of intermediatories and ISPs

This class deals with liability of intermediaries. For example, is an ISP liable for the conduct of its users? Is a web hosting company liable for the content of others that it hosts? Is TripAdvisor liable for reviews of hotels posted by users? Is Google liable for the content that appears on this blog?

Should such intermediaries be liable for the actions of others?

This is a very topical class, with a number of relevant decisions from the past two weeks.  Thus, there is a lot of reading for this class.

The main reading for the class is the iiNet case:
The iiNet case is currently on appeal to the High Court of Australia.  Oral argument has been heard, and we are waiting for judgment.  It is reported that judgment will be handed down on Friday, 20 April.  Transcripts and written submissions can be found on the High Court website.

Please also read the very recent case: Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Google Inc. [2012] FCAFC 49 decided last week; and compare UK position summarised here.

Also, read the following:

Google Liable for Misleading Advertisements

The Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia today decided that Google was liable for misleading advertisements placed by advertisers.  See Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v. Google Inc. [2012] FCAFC 49.

The 3-0 judgment against Google included the following text:

"An ordinary and reasonable user would conclude from these circumstances that it was Google who was displaying the sponsored link in collocation with the sponsor's URL in response to the user's search.  Even if all these circumstances would not be apparent to ordinary and reasonable users, so that Google could not be "seen" by them to be more than a mere conduit, these circumstances show that Google is, in fact, much more than a mere conduit.  ...  Critical to this conclusion is the fact that the sponsored link is displayed on the screen in response to a user's query which is made by the entry of selected key words.  Thus, the user asks a question of Google and obtains Google's response.  Several features of the overall process indicate that Google engages in misleading conduct. ...

Google supplies its advertising customers with the ability to select keywords which are expected to be used by persons making enquiries through Google's search engine.  The ability of advertisers to select "broad match" keywords enables them to trigger sponsored links through Google's search engine based on known associations which are determined by Google's proprietary algorithm.  Although the keywords are selected by the advertiser, perhaps with input from Google, what is critical to the process is the triggering of the link by Google using its algorithms.  That is a further reason to conclude that it is Google's conduct as a principal, not merely as a conduit, which is involved in each of the four instances that form the subject matter of this appeal."

Copyright & Theft

"THE Justice Department is building its case against Megaupload, the hugely popular file-sharing site that was indicted earlier this year on multiple counts of copyright infringement and related crimes. The company’s servers have been shut down, its assets seized and top employees arrested. And, as is usual in such cases, prosecutors and their allies in the music and movie industries have sought to invoke the language of “theft” and “stealing” to frame the prosecutions and, presumably, obtain the moral high ground. ...


The problem is that most people simply don’t buy the claim that illegally downloading a song or video from the Internet really is like stealing a car. According to a range of empirical studies, including one conducted by me and my social psychologist collaborator, Matthew Kugler, lay observers draw a sharp moral distinction between file sharing and genuine theft, even when the value of the property is the same."


See NY Times opinion article from U.S. law school professor.

Copyright Exceptions To Be Reviewed

Draft terms of reference for an Australian Law Reform Commission (ALRC) inquiry into the operation of copyright exceptions in the digital environment were released today for public comment.
Attorney-General Nicola Roxon said the ALRC will consider whether the exceptions in the Federal Copyright Act are adequate and appropriate in the digital environment.  The draft terms of reference reflect the fact that technology is constantly evolving and testing the boundaries of copyright law Ms Roxon said.

"In our fast changing, technologically driven world, it important to ensure our copyright laws are keeping pace with change and able to respond to future challenges.  We want to ensure this review has enough scope to look at the key areas of copyright so were calling on stakeholders to provide us with their feedback before the ALRC begins its work."

The draft terms of reference ask the ALRC to examine the adequacy and appropriateness of a broad range of exceptions in the Copyright Act, including time shifting.

The draft terms of reference also direct the ALRC to consider whether exceptions should allow the legitimate non-commercial use of copyright works for uses on the internet such as social networking.

The Government has appointed Professor Jill McKeough, University of Technology Sydney Dean of Law, to the ALRC as a Commissioner to lead the copyright inquiry.

Class 6 - Content Regulation

Reading for next Monday's class on Content Regulation.

This class will focus on laws and current issues relating to the regulation of content on the Internet.

Should freedom of speech on the Internet prevail over protection of the public interest? Does the public need to be protected? What is the difference between censorship and regulation?

What are the relevant public interests? Who decides?

Should there by government regulation, or reliance on technology (such as NetNanny), or parental responsibility (e.g., see Google's Family Safety Centre)?


Reading:
Extra Reading if you are interested:

Privacy

Please review the following privacy materials for the next lecture.

Australia
General information - OAIC, Australian Privacy Foundation, Electronic Frontiers
How prevalent (and relevant) are privacy concerns in Australia? How would you pursue a privacy complaint?

Legislation - look at the Privacy Act and the National Privacy Principles. Are further reforms on the way?

Case reports - review (and be ready to discuss) some privacy decisions, whether made by the Federal Privacy Commissioner or the Australian Information Commissioner.
You should also be aware of relevant case law in this area - is there a right to privacy at common law? Will there be in the future?

International
Art 17 of ICCPR.

Contractual rights
Look at the privacy policy of at least 2 websites you frequently use. Do you agree to all the terms and conditions?
For example - Google, News

Cookies
Are cookies a privacy concern, or a part of everyday life?

Recent news
Google and more Google
Then Google maps - what have been the different responses around the world?
Facebook and also here

International Online Shopping

U.S. stores are shipping to customers in Australia.

"International visitors are coming to American sites because of lower prices and the availability of products they cannot get in their own countries, according to Forrester. Macy’s has found that Australian shoppers are particularly interested in its trendy clothes, while Canadians want basics like coats, shoes and underwear."  See NYT

What legal issues could arise for the U.S. sellers and the Australian buyers?

Wrong Takedown Demand

What happens if a person issues a copyright take down demand to a file sharing website such as Vimeo or YouTube, and it is wrong.  Potential liability for unjustified threats.
See Bell v. Steele
See also:  SMH Article and Note.

Telephone Numbers, Domain Names and Trade Marks

Have a look at this recent decision concerning a trade mark application for a telephone number:
1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc v Registrar of Trade Marks [2012] FCA 209
This case involves a dispute between 1300Flowers and 1800Flowers.
It reminds me of the domain name decisions concerning "Phonewords".  See for example:
the 1300fitness.com.au decision.

For Creators of Games, a Faint Line on Cloning

"Cloning the soul of a game — its gameplay mechanics, design, characters and storyline — is now commonplace in digital marketplaces like Apple’s iOS App Store and Google’s Android. And while the app stores have offered an unparalleled opportunity for independent software makers to reach customers and make money with an innovative game, they are learning it is just as easy for another game studio to compete with a very similar game."
See Full Article

Class 4 - Spam, crime and phishing

Next week we will be looking at spam, crime and phishing.

Please look at the relevant chapters of the textbook (chapter 11 and part of chapter 3) as well as the following materials.


Spam

Australian law - Spam Act 2003 (Cth)
US law - CAN-SPAM Act
EU directive - Directive on privacy and electronic communications (Article 13)
Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA)
Internet industry Spam Code of Practice

How effective are these laws?

Crime
Australian law - Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)Criminal Code 1899 (Qld)
Scale of cybercrime - Symantec report
Australian Federal Police
Lulzsec
Cost - here and here

Is cybercrime underreported? Australian Institute of Criminology

Phishing
Australian government - Scamwatch
Anti Phishing Working Group
Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting & Conformance

What is the best way to respond to phishing - raising awareness, enacting legislation or cutting off scam emails before they arrive?

Google Play

Email from Google:


Today we introduced Google Play, a new digital content destination available on mobile devices and on the web. With Google Play, users can buy and experience books, music, movies and Android apps, available across their devices. Google Play gives our partners and the ecosystem an integrated entertainment hub for Android and Google users. As part of this launch, Google eBooks and Android Market will become part of Google Play, and users will now get their ebooks from Google Play.

In addition, customers who go to the web ebookstore will be redirected to the Google Play store. While this doesn't change the way consumers read Google eBooks, it does provide a more compelling mobile purchase experience.

We are excited about the opportunities ahead to "play" together.

Google Play team

Helpful Resources:
Google Play overview - http://play.google.com/about
Google Play brand assets - http://www.android.com/branding.html
FAQs - http://support.google.com/books/partner/bin/answer.py?answer=2494942

Privacy and Opt-Out

Many people are aware of the use of cookies for tracking purposes.  But that is old technology.  Many advertisers use more sophisticated tec...