歐盟法院認為公開無線網路的營運者不需要對使用者的侵權行為負責

歐盟法院 (The Court of Justice of the European Union) 認為公開無線網路的營運者不需要對使用者的侵權行為負責:「EU Court: Open WiFi Operator Not Liable For Pirate Users」。

不過這是有一些前提的,法院認為應該要符合這幾個要件,營運方才不要負責。基本上完全沒有 filter 限制的無線網路會符合這些條件:

The Court further notes that in order for such ‘mere conduit’ services to be exempt from third party liability, three cumulative conditions must be met:

– The provider must not have initiated the transmission
– It must not have selected the recipient of the transmission
– It must neither have selected nor modified the information contained in the transmission.

帶這並不代表丟著不管,而是在發生後要求改善:

In an effort to strike a balance between protecting a service provider from third party liability and the rights of IP owners, the Court ruled that providers can be required to end infringement.

“[T]he directive does not preclude the copyright holder from seeking before a national authority or court to have such a service provider ordered to end, or prevent, any infringement of copyright committed by its customers,” the Court found.

One such measure could include the obtaining of an injunction which would force an operator to password-protect his open WiFi network in order to deter infringement.

但法院並不同意直接監控:

On a more positive note, the Court rejected the notion of monitoring networks for infringement or taking more aggressive actions where unnecessary.

“[T]he directive expressly rules out the adoption of a measure to monitor information transmitted via a given network. Similarly, a measure consisting in terminating the internet connection completely without considering the adoption of measures less restrictive of the connection provider’s freedom to conduct a business would not be capable of reconciling the abovementioned conflicting rights,” the Court concludes.

網路對現在的言論自由非常重要,所以只有在確認侵犯他人權益的情況下才採取必要措施,歐盟法院這樣判大概是覺得這樣吧...

麻州立法禁止詢問前一份工作的薪資

雖然利用談判技巧是可以避開 (在你有本錢談判的情況下),麻州直接立法禁止了,這對於求職者來說相當重要:「Illegal in Massachusetts: Asking Your Salary in a Job Interview」。

The new law will require hiring managers to state a compensation figure upfront — based on what an applicant’s worth is to the company, rather than on what he or she made in a previous position.

法案是「Bill S.2119」,可以看到「An Act to establish pay equity」的說明,應該是指目標之類的。

裡面的幾個重點,首先是生效日期:

SECTION 7. This act shall take effect on January 1, 2018.

然後是求職期間的禁止行為:

(3) seek the salary history of any prospective employee from any current or former employer; provided, however, that a prospective employee may provide written authorization to a prospective employer to confirm prior wages, including benefits or other compensation or salary history only after any offer of employment with compensation has been made to the prospective employee;

接下來應該會有更多州制定類似的條款...

Facebook 的臉部辨認系統將被搬上法院,確認是否違法

在「Lawsuit challenging Facebook’s facial recognition system moves forward」這邊提到了 Facebook 的臉部辨認系統將被搬上法院確認是否違法。

Facebook 首先提出 Terms of Service 內規定不受依利諾州法律管理,只受加州以及聯邦法律管理,而依利諾州推翻這項規範,認為原告有權在依利諾州提起訴訟:

Today's decision focused on the question of whether the Illinois law is applicable to Facebook, one of the major legal hurdles facing the plaintiffs. Facebook's Terms of Service maintains that the the company is only bound by California and federal laws, and the company had moved to dismiss the case on those grounds. But today, the judge ruled that the terms-of-service clause isn't sufficient to nullify the Illinois law. As a result, the plaintiffs have a valid claim under the Illinois biometrics law and the case can proceed.

來拉板凳了...

VENUE Act 對專利蟑螂的反擊

EFF 的「We Can't Keep Waiting: Pass the VENUE Act This Year」這篇寫的還蠻清楚的,VENUE Act (S. 2733) 是一個看起來頗有效的 workaround,先上這個 workaround 降低專利蟑螂的攻勢。

專利蟑螂 (通常是原告) 可以選擇任意一個聯邦法庭提出控告:

As the law stands now, patent owners have almost complete control over which federal district to file a case in. That’s a major problem.

而專利蟑螂會挑選對原告最有利的地區來提出控告,也就是美國德克薩斯東區聯邦地區法院 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas),這對被告方很不利:

According to the Mercatus Center and George Mason University, nearly half of all patent cases are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. That’s more than 70 times the average number of patent cases heard in other federal judicial districts.

Respected academics have identified evidence that procedures in the Eastern District of Texas unnecessarily favor plaintiffs and impose significant, unnecessary costs on companies and individuals accused of infringement, however questionable the patents and demands may be.

而 VENUE Act 則是拔掉這個武器,必須在與被告相關的主要地區提告。

舊金山要求新的建築物都必須有太陽能設備

舊金山通過在 2017 年之後的建築物必須有 15% 的屋頂面積必須是太陽能相關的設備:「San Francisco Is Requiring Solar Panels on All New Buildings」:

The ordinance, passed unanimously by the city’s Board of Supervisors, extends an existing California law which requires 15 percent of roof space on new buildings to be “solar ready” — available and unshaded. That ordinance applies to residential or commercial buildings 10 stories or shorter.

也就是說,可以是太陽能的發電,也可以是太陽能集熱的設備:

Under the new ordinance, which will go into effect in 2017, new buildings need to have solar energy of some kind installed, either electricity-generating panels or solar heating units.

希望在 2020 年達到 100% 再生能源的目標:

San Francisco took a major step toward its own goal of meeting the city’s electricity demands with 100 percent renewable energy by 2020.

這成為美國第一個主要城市通過這樣的規範:

This week, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to require all new buildings to have solar panels on their roofs, according to Scott Wiener, the city supervisor who introduced the bill.

科威特通過法律強制取得每個人的 DNA:包括外籍人士與訪客

Bruce Schneier 這邊看到這則新聞:「Kuwaiti Government will DNA Test Everyone」,原始報導在「Kuwait set to enforce DNA testing law on all – Officials reassure tests won’t be used to determine genealogy」這邊,開頭的說明還蠻清楚的:

The DNA testing law that will go into effect this year is aimed at creating an integrated security database and does not include genealogical implications or affects personal freedoms and privacy.

以及:

When the law (no. 78/2015) is applied, it will be binding on all citizens, expatriates and visitors too.

Bruce Schneier 擔心的是這種嚴重侵犯隱私的資訊沒有任何罰則可以阻止科威特政府將 DNA 資訊轉其他國家的政府:

And there is nothing preventing the Kuwaiti government from sharing that information with any other government.

這個國家完全不能進去...

在美國「製造槍枝的方法」是否受到管制?

有了 3D Printer 後,就有人用 3D Printer 設計槍枝,而 Defense Distributed 則是當中頗有名的藍圖,而作者把這份藍圖給丟出來讓大家用。

美國憲法第二修正案保障人民持有並攜帶武器的權利不得被侵犯,但「散佈製造槍枝的方法」是否也是被第二修正案保護,則還在打官司決定:「Does it violate federal export law if a website publishes CAD files of firearms?」。

目前看起來要打到巡迴庭...

19 歲的英國寫了個機器人程式產生上訴文件,半年成功消滅了一億的罰單

看起來是用 template 加上一些問題組合成的:「A 19-year-old made a free robot lawyer that has appealed $3 million in parking tickets」、「A teenager has saved motorists over £2 million by creating a website to appeal parking fines」。

會問一些問題,然後產生一份文件讓你上訴:

Once you sign in, a chat screen pops up. To learn about your case, the bot asks questions like "Were you the one driving?" and "Was it hard to understand the parking signs?" It then spits out an appeal letter, which you mail to the court. If the robot is completely confused, it tells you how to contact Browder directly.

網站名稱叫做 www.donotpay.co.uk 也很清楚目的 XDDD

音樂著作的授權架構

TorrentFreak 上看到「YouTube Copyright Complaint Kills Harvard Professor's Copyright Lecture (Update)」這篇文章提到了 YouTube 下架了「William Fisher, CopyrightX: Lecture 3.3, The Subject Matter of Copyright: Music」這部影片。

有兩件事情吸引我,第一件是,這是哈佛法學院的教授 William Fisher 的課程在說明音樂產業的著作權以及授權架構的線上影片,被 SME (i.e. Sony) 透過 YouTube 的 ContentID 以侵犯版權給下架了... XDDD (瞬間把板凳給拉出來坐著等)

第二件事情是在這個影片恢復後跑去看而發現的,發現描述音樂產業的授權模式講的相當清楚 (以美國的觀點),尤其當你身在這個產業裡 (yeah yeah),要因為這些授權架構不斷的改變,去修改現有的資料庫設計以配合授權架構,就會更有感覺了。

這個影片另外一個值得讀的地方在於他有手工翻譯的英文字幕可以看,有興趣看這個產業裡的各種複雜的授權架構的人,絕對值得觀看這 24 分鐘的影片:

英國法院認為 GCHQ 偷黑別人機器是合法的

出自「Tribunal rules computer hacking by GCHQ is not illegal」這篇報導。在 Edward Snowden 爆料美國與英國政府都在幹黑的後,Privacy International 就提出訴訟控告 GCHQ,但前幾天法院認定這樣是合法的:

Campaigners Privacy International have lost a legal challenge claiming the spying post's hacking operations are too intrusive and break European law.

The case was launched after revelations by US whistleblower Edward Snowden about the extent of US and UK spying.

接下來的戰場會變成在 Investigatory Powers Bill 上面?還是會繼續有上訴?