User:Pharos/Class Zoo

Copyright, Commerce, and Culture (Evan Hill-Ries) Class Zoo

(An artistic compilation of student sandboxes)

"Revenge porn” is the online distribution of sexually explicit images of an individual without consent to humiliate the pictured individual.

Revenge porn is uploaded by a variety of sources, including former lovers or hackers, and is frequently distributed through amateur pornography aggregators or websites dedicated to revenge porn. Revenge porn is often accompanied by identifying personal information about the individual, including Facebook pages, e-mail addresses and full names.

Background

The origins of revenge porn can be traced to 2000. An Italian researcher, Sergio Messina, identified “ realcore pornography,” a new genre comprised of images and videos of ex-girlfriends distributed through Usenet groups. Eight years later, amateur porn aggregator XTube began receiving complaints that pornographic content had been posted without subjects’ consent. Several sites began capitalizing on the revenge porn phenomenon, either by hosting authentic user-submitted content or by staging consensual pornography to resemble revenge porn.

Revenge porn began garnering international media when Hunter Moore launched IsAnyoneUp.com in 2010. The site featured user-submitted pornography, often by ex-partners seeking to humiliate their former lovers.IsAnyoneUp was one of the first revenge porn sites that included identifying information, such the subjects’ names and social networking profiles, alongside nude and semi-nude photographs.

Revenge Porn Litigation and Legislation

Many individuals whose sexually explicit photographs were posted online without their consent, often considered "victims" of revenge porn, have sought legal remedies. Tort, privacy and copyright laws offer legal avenues for victims to remove revenge porn. Some states have laws that criminalize revenge porn.

Several well-known revenge porn websites, including IsAnyoneUp and the Texxxan, have been taken down in response to actual or threatened legal action.

Tort and Privacy Law

Recent lawsuits over revenge porn have alleged various torts, including invasion of privacy, public disclosure of private fact and intentional infliction of emotional distress, against the individuals who uploaded the images.

Forty states, including California and New York, have anti-cyberharassment laws that may be applicable to cases of revenge porn.

Copyright Law

An estimated 80% of revenge porn victims took the photographs or videos themselves. Those individuals can bring actions for copyright infringement against the person who uploaded their nude or semi-nude selfies. In most cases, victims must register their sexually explicit photographs with the Copyright Office to bring a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

Successful civil suits for copyright infringement can result in an injunction, monetary damages, and attorney’s fees.

Legislation

To date, only two states have laws expressly applicable to revenge porn: New Jersey and California.

New Jersey’s law was passed in 2004, long before the rise of revenge porn. The law prohibits the distribution of sexually explicit photographs and films by any person, “knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so,” and without the subjects’ consent. Penalties include up to five years in prison and $30,000 in fines. The law was used to prosecute Dharun Ravi, the Rutgers student who distributed webcam footage of his roommate engaging in sexual activity, as well as several men who allegedly distributed revenge porn of their ex-girlfriends.

California passed its law at the beginning of October. The law prohibits the distribution of “intimate” photographs or films taken of a victim “with the intent to cause serious emotional distress.” Penalties include up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The law protects images that were taken consensually, but only if the distributor of the image is also the photographer.

Hunter Moore, founder of the now-defunct IsAnyoneUp revenge porn site, criticized the California legislation in a YouTube statement, because the law “doesn’t protect selfies, which is the whole point of... revenge porn.” Revenge porn victim-advocates, like Cyber Civil Rights Initiative founder Dr. Holly Jacobs and law professor Mary Anne Franks, have also criticized California law for not being more protective.

Other states, including New York, Wisconsin and Florida, are also considering passing legislation to target revenge porn.

Legal Protections for Revenge Porn

First Amendment and Anti-SLAPP

Some free speech advocates have objected to revenge porn laws on First Amendment grounds. The American Civil Liberties Union defended revenge porn as constitutionally protected speech as long as the images do not run afoul of other criminal laws, including child pornography and stalking laws. United States courts are generally reluctant to uphold legislation that restricts free speech.

Individuals who upload revenge porn, as well as websites that host it, can use states’ anti-SLAPP laws to challenge lawsuits. Anti-SLAPP, or strategic lawsuit against public participation, laws allow defendants to fight back against lawsuits that are aimed at stifling lawful free speech. Twenty-five states have passed anti-SLAPP legislation..

Communications Decency Act §230

Several recent revenge porn lawsuits have named service providers and websites as defendants alongside the individuals who uploaded the images. Most online publishers are shielded from liability for user-generated content by the the Communications Decency Act, also known as §230. The CDA also protects many website users who subscribe to or view web content from liability. Lawsuits against service providers and user-generated revenge porn websites are likely barred by §230.

Related Topics

• Privacy Law
• Sexting
• Obscenity
• IsAnyoneUp
• Selfies

External Links

• Cyber Civil Rights Initiative
• Should We Do About Revenge Porn Sites Like Texxxan?
• in Victim Blaming: Revenge Porn Edition

The Patent Act of 1970 was the first patent statute passed by the federal government of the United States. It was enacted on April 10, 1790, about one year after the constitution was ratified and a new government was organized. The law was concise, defining the subject matter of a U.S. patent as “any useful art, manufacture, engine, machine, or device, or any improvement thereon not before known or used.” It granted the applicant the "sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used" of his invention.

United States Patent X1

Background

The origins of the 1790 Patent Act can be found in House Resolution 41, which brought about a discussion concerning the constitutionality of authorizing patents of importation. House Resolution 41 is the reason for why the Patent Act of 1790 did not provide for patents of importation when it was finally passed. Patent Board members, who also called themselves the “Commissioners for the Promotion of Useful Arts”, were given the authority to grant or refuse a patent after deciding if the invention or discovery was “sufficiently useful and important.” The first board members included Thomas Jefferson, Henry Knox, and Edmund Randolph. Obtaining a patent required an overall fee of about four to five dollars：filing the application cost fifty cents plus ten cents per hundred words of specification: two dollars for producing the actual patent, one dollar for affixing the Great Seal and twenty cents for endorsement and all other services. The duration of each patent was assigned by the Patent Board, and could be of any length as long as it did not exceed fourteen years.

Operation of the act

The authority to grant and refuse patents was handled completely by the Patent Board, which was composed of three members: the Secretary of State, the Secretary of War, and the Attorney General. The Department of State was where the act was administered because that is where the necessary books and records were kept and where filed papers were received. The three members of the Patent Board held meetings every so often and discussed the patent applications they had received. Sometimes the Patent Board would designate a day, during which a hearing would be held and the patent petitioner would have an opportunity to explain his case in person. However, these meetings were not scheduled as regularly as could have been, and the process for reviewing applications advanced slowly as each application required thorough and careful inspection.

Obtaining a patent

The act was intended to grant patents only to the “useful Arts,” which was usually the work of skilled workers and artisans, especially in the fields of engineering and manufacturing. Obtaining a patent required first completing an examination, but this examination requirement was later dropped with the passing of the Patent Act of 1793. The inventor was required to submit “a specification…containing a description…not only distinguish[ing] the invention…but also to enable” a person knowledgeable of the art to use the invention for its intended purpose. This specification was made in writing and included a drawing and model if possible. Applicants were not required to give an oath.

Infringement

Cases of infringement were dealt with by a jury, which assessed the damages made and appropriate punishment. The person who infringed, if found guilty, was made to hand over all of the infringing devices to the owner of the patent. Patents could be repealed by a district court within one year after it was granted if found to be infringing. However, if one was to bring his case to trial and lose, he would have to pay all costs. Several infringement suits involving the patents granted under this act occurred between 1790 and 1793, which are detailed by an act passed on June 7, 1974. In the event that a patent was found to be unjustly repealed, all suits, actions, processes and proceedings under the act of 1790 that had been set aside, suspended or abated by original reason for why it should be repealed could be given back as if the act had not been repealed.

Patents passed under the act

Fifty-seven patents were granted during the three years the 1790 Patent Act existed. Three of these patents were granted in 1790, thirty-three in 1790, eleven in 1792, and ten in 1793 before February, which is when the following patent act was adopted. There is little available information regarding the subject matter of these patents, because all of these records along with other documents of the Patent Office were destroyed in the Patent Office Fire of 1836. The first patent was granted on July 31, 1790, to Samuel Hopkins (inventor) for his invention of “Making Pot and Pearl Ashes.” Potash was used as an ingredient in several fields of manufacturing, such as making glass and soap, dying cloth, and producing both saltpeter and gun-powder. Samuel Hopkins of Pittsford, Vermont is generally misunderstood to be the recipient of this first patent, but the actual recipient was a different Samuel Hopkins from a town north of Baltimore, Maryland. Hopkins left behind a series of manuscripts describing the utility of his discovery of Potash, which is derived from a crude form of potassium carbonate and may be deemed as one of America’s first chemicals to become widely used in industrial fields. The third patent was granted to a man named Oliver Evans on December 18, 1790. This patent involved about five individual inventions all related to the manufacture of flour. The fourth patent was granted on January 29, 1791, to Francis Bailey for inventing punches for types; it is the first patent whose existing copy remains in the Patent Office archives. The document is signed by George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Edmund Randolph. It contains only the grant and does not detail any specific aspects of the invention and its usage.

Reasons for amending the act

The 1790 Patent Act was amended for several reasons. The examination process required an unreasonable amount of time and soon became criticized by those in charge of administering it, the most vocal member being Thomas Jefferson. Investors also believed that “patents were too difficult to obtain” under the act. Congress removed the examination process three years after the 1790 Patent Act was passed, and inventions no longer needed to be deemed as “sufficiently useful and important” to be granted a patent. The new act transformed the process of granting patents from initially requiring strict examination by high government officials to requiring no examination at all.

See also

• United States patent law
• Patent Act of 1836

External Links

• [[1]]

User:Mac703/Sandbox User:Kristiberry/Sandbox This is my sandbox. There are many like it, but this one is mine.

PIRATE ACT!!

The Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004, better known as the Pirate Act, was a bill in the United States Congress that would have let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected copyright infringers. Prior to the introduction of this act, only criminal lawsuits could be filed against suspected infringers.

Background

By the mid-1990's, p2p file sharing over the Internet had risen to prominence. Until 1997, copyright infringement was only considered a criminal offense if it was for the purpose of "commercial advantage or private financial gain." During this year, the NET Act was passed, which allowed for federal prosecutors to file criminal lawsuits against suspected infringers, without requiring evidence of commercial benefit or financial gain. However, it proved difficult to find legitimate criminal charges, and by 2004, this privilege had yet to be invoked by federal prosecutors.

As file sharing became more popular, the music industry experienced a steady three-year decline in revenue. From 2001-2004, the industry lost $5 billion , partially attributed to the increase in online music piracy on websites such as Kazaa, Morpheus and Grokster. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) had filed thousands of civil lawsuits without the aid of federal prosecutors, hoping to deter music piracy at large. One of the first and most famous online copyright infringement lawsuits - Capitol v. Thomas - resulted in a mother of four owing $1.5 million to various music labels for violating copyrights on 24 songs.

Contents

The bill was introduced in the United States Senate as S. 2237 by Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) on March 25, 2004. It would allow the United States Department of Justice to bring civil copyright infringement cases against individuals suspected of illegal file-swapping on the Internet. In filing a civil lawsuit, knowledge of infringement and willful intent are not required criteria, as they are in criminal cases. Thus, there is a lower burden of proof, making it easier for the DOJ to pursue infringers. Penalties for violating the terms of the bill included fines and prison time of up to 10 years if someone shares 2,500 pieces or more of content, such as songs or movies. Sharing a file that is determined (by a judge) to be worth more than $10,000 can also result in prison time. Additionally, anyone who releases content that has not yet been released in wide distribution could also face penalties.

In his argument in favor of the bill, Senator Leahy stated, "Prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and copyright owners have been left to fend for themselves, defending their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament.”

In addition to granting the DOJ this privilege, the bill also stipulated that the Attorney General would have six months to "develop a program to ensure effective implementation and use of the authority for civil enforcement of the copyright laws" , and report back to Congress on the details of said lawsuits, including the total number of lawsuits and the financial statistics. The DOJ would receive $2 million in order to fund the program at its conception.

Reception

Groups within the entertainment industry, including the RIAA and the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) were very supportive of the Pirate Act. Jack Valenti, the MPAA's chief executive at the time, commended Senators Hatch and Leahy for "their vision and leadership in combating the theft of America's creative works." Additionally, Mitch Bainwol, then-chairman and CEO of the RIAA, agreed with Valenti's sentiments, stating that "this legislation provides federal prosecutors with the flexibility and discretion to bring copyright-infringement cases that best correspond to the nature of the crime."

Legislative history

The Pirate Act was grouped into an omnibus bill - The Intellectual Property Protection Act (2004) - with seven other related pieces of legislation, including the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2004 (ART Act). It passed the Senate by a unanimous vote on June 25, 2004, and was referred to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary on August 4, 2004, where it eventually failed to pass. Various reincarnations of the Pirate Act were proposed and passed through the Senate in both 2005 and 2006, but both times it again failed to pass through the House.

Another variation - The Intellectual Property Enforcement Act of 2007 - was proposed in the Senate on November 6, 2007, but no progress was made.

Criticism

Some organizations feel that the passage of bills such as the Pirate Act would give private industry groups (like the RIAA) unnecessary aid from the government. By using the financial advantages provided by the DOJ, the Act would put the responsibility of funding the war on intellectual property piracy on taxpayers, rather than the content owners. Those who oppose this legislation feel that it expands the role of government far beyond what is necessary in order to combat the issue. Stacie Rumenap, deputy director of the American Conservative Union, was strongly against the bill: "The Pirate Act is another masquerade by Hollywood to make taxpayers foot the bill for its misguided war on promising new technology. Right now, Hollywood is trying to ram this flawed bill - a handout for Tinsel Town fat cats - through Congress without hearings or debate."

Organizations such as P2P United, a group that represents software companies that run file-sharing networks, are opposed to the new laws that would punish file sharers. Instead, they propose that politicians should explore ways in which copyright holders can be paid through the movement of their works through P2P networks.

During the first quarter of 2004, Senator Leahy received $178,000 in campaign contributions from groups within the entertainment industries, which constituted his second-largest source of donations. Senator Hatch received $152,360 from similar groups.

Additionally, this may create conflicts with the double jeopardy defense, as the RIAA would not technically be prohibited from filing suit against parties who had already been sued by the DOJ.

See also

• Intellectual property legislation pending in the United States Congress
• Trade group efforts against file sharing

External links

Text of the "Pirate Act"

sandbox, this is mine.

Nom Nom'ing on some grass.

The most regal of all the canines.

User:MalikaZ/sandbox My Wikipedia Article User:Shira91/Sandbox

Porcupines are epic

This is my sandbox.

Always eating.

Emperor Penguins

Japanese Squirrel

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.01201:

just chilling in the arctic world

Red Panda!

This is my sandbox. This is my sandbox.

This is a honey badger. It's the meanest animal on the planet.

This is my sandbox

Just Keep Swimming.