E-TIPS

Recently, the State of Washington became the first U.S. state to win a court judgment involving its anti-spam law. Under Washington's 1998 Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act ("UCEMA"), it is illegal to send an e-mail that uses deceptive subject lines, a third party's domain name without permission, or a false return address. The Attorney General's Office sued Jason Heckel ("Heckel") and his company, Natural Instincts, shortly after the UCEMA was enacted, accusing Heckel of violating the UCEMA.

On August 30, 2002, the Danish Eastern High Court released a decision preventing the Dansk Internet Forum ("DIFO"), the national domain registrar for Denmark, from revoking Digital Marketing Support's ("DMS") registration of the domain name co.dk.

Australia to Utilize the Internet to Facilitate Trial The Banco Supreme Court in Queensland, Australia, is home to the first Internet based court case. The corporate case implementing this technology is expected to last several months and will act as a test for the new system. The technology involved can be used in both District and Supreme courts and in civil and criminal cases.

This is the website for the Internet Legal Resource Guide™ (ILRG). The ILRG is a mega site with a categorized index of thousands of links to law related websites all over the world. It is a good starting point when doing law related online research.

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") has taken steps to deal with the chronic problem of false contact information in domain name registration records. Determining the true owner of a dot-com domain has long been one of the biggest hurdles faced by those seeking to prevent unlawful online activities such as trademark and copyright infringement, obscenity, illegal gambling, invasion of privacy or defamation. Domain names are registered online without any check of the information provided by the registrant. For the most part, registrars have not been willing to take steps to deal with complaints of false registration information (also known as "who-is" data).

On August 28, 2002, the Canadian Privacy Commissioner released his findings on the complaint by an individual that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) had been continuing to receive, store, and withhold e-mails from the subscriber while her account was under suspension pending the payment of arrears. The Commission found that the ISP had breached the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (PIPEDA) by having used the complainant's personal information without her consent and by failing to sufficiently indicate in the original service agreement how it would handle e-mails in the event of an account suspension.

Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals (10th Cir) examined a case relating to a contract to pay commissions for locating investors that would provide venture capital to a technology company.

Two Complainants in Southern Florida have sued AT&T Broadband for intentionally bypassing certain poor minority neighbourhoods when offering its high-speed Internet access. While AT&T denies the allegations, the Complaints could effectively block the proposed sale of AT&T's broadband unit to Comcast.

In Bowers v. Baystate Technologies, Inc., a case dealing with the conflict between the US Copyright Act and a shrink wrap license which barred reverse engineering, the U.S. Federal Court of Appeals confirmed that the rights may exist separately.

A man convicted under a strict U.S. federal law that outlaws cyber-stalking was sentenced to eight years in prison. In June, a jury convicted Eric Bowker of stalking a television reporter by sending obscene e-mails and telephone messages and by stealing her mail.

The U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) recently granted a motion by various record companies and music publishers for a preliminary injunction against the Aimster file sharing service (also known as "Madster"). In granting the motion, the Court held that the "Plaintiffs have unequivocally established that Aimster's users are engaged in direct copyright infringement" and moreover, that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits for both the contributory and vicarious infringement claims. In coming its decision, the Court noted that Aimster "is a service whose very raison d'être appears to be the facilitation of and contribution to copyright infringement on a massive scale.'"

The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) and Privacy International released the 2002 edition of their annual survey on the state of privacy in over fifty countries, titled "Privacy and Human Rights 2002: An International Survey of Privacy Laws and Developments" (the "Report"). The Report outlines legal protections for privacy and summarizes issues and events relating to privacy and surveillance.

In the recent decision of Sparaco v. LMS, the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of the existence of copyright in a construction site plan. The plaintiff was retained to prepare a site plan for a proposed assisted living facility. According to the Court, a "site plan is a development plan for a plot of land. It specifies existing land conditions, including topography, boundaries, and physical structures, and can also specify the proposed improvements to the site." In this case, the prepared site plan included renderings of the existing physical characteristics of the site and proposed physical improvements to the site. The developers of the property then went on to copy much of the prepared site plan in the preparation of an amended plan without the plaintiff's participation. The plaintiff commenced proceedings claiming, amongst others, for breach of copyright in the preparation of the amended plan.

The law governing clickwrap contracts was recently addressed in two U.S. cases with very different results: In Forrest v. Verizon Communication, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals examined the validity of a forum selection clause contained in a clickwrap agreement. The Court had to determine whether the appellant, Forrest, had demonstrated that the enforcement of the clickwrap forum selection clause was unreasonable under the circumstance. The forum selection clause mandated that claims be brought in Virginia. The state of Virginia is one of the only two states in U.S. that do not provide for a class action procedure. Forrest claimed that he would be denied his day in court due to his inability to file a class action suit. The court held that the appellant would still be entitled to his day in court and could still benefit from remedies that are available to individual plaintiffs. The clickwrap forum selection clause was held to be reasonable and enforced.

On a complaint from a photographer, the owner of a profitable website advertising 8,000 pop idol photographs scanned from newspapers, was arrested by police on charges of violating Copyright law.

Industry Canada, in conjunction with its provincial counterparts, has issued a consultation paper on the possible harmonisation of jurisdictional issues surrounding E-commerce transactions.

In a recent article, the National Law Journal discusses a trend in the U.S., whereby higher learning institutions such as universities are increasingly suing private companies over intellectual property rights such as patent and licensing rights. The following are some examples of such litigation currently before U.S. courts:

On a complaint from a Vancouver man, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) ruled that an Internet site containing anti-gay propaganda linking all homosexuals to pedophiles, was discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and that the offensive portions must be removed.

The National Intellectual Property Researchers Association (NIPRA), a U.S. intellectual property interest group, is suing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in a last-minute bid to stop the USPTO from dismantling its paper collection of patents and trademarks, beginning on August 26th as part of that agency's e-government initiative.

Canada's Justice Department has released a discussion paper which sets out the government's attempt to increase its powers relating to the interception of e-communications and its search and seizure powers relating to entities such as Internet Service Providers (ISP). The government's main reason for such changes is the goal of allowing Canada to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Cyber-crime.