A testament to the significance of this concern is last week’s victory of the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada.  Facebook was charged with violating Canada’s privacy laws, both with respect to the disclosure of personally identifiable information of Facebook users to over one million third party Facebook application developers, as well as keeping a user’s personal information indefinitely (including after deactivation of a user’s account).  Along with the attention of other social network providers, Canada’s investigation certainly elicited global attention, as it became the first country to legally examine Facebook’s privacy policies and procedures.  This investigation has also led the Canadian privacy commission to examine the privacy policies and practices of six other social networking sites.  The Privacy Commissioner’s chief complaint was that the way in which Facebook provides information about its privacy policies to its users is often confusing or incomplete.

As a result of the investigation, Facebook announced that it will implement new privacy safeguards and modify its privacy policy accordingly.  Among other things, Facebook has agreed to compel third-party developers to disclose to Facebook users the precise types of information they plan to access and use.  Under the current policy, users who want to utilize the third-party applications via their Facebook account are required to agree to share all of their data with such third party developers. 

The new procedures are intended to ensure that users are given the opportunity to consent to use of each type of personal information (such as date of birth, hometown, etc.), but more importantly have the ability to refrain from approving the use/disclosure of certain types of information while still being able to utilize the third party applications.  Facebook will also provide users clearer explanations and information in terms of deactivating their user accounts, specifically to make it clearer to users the difference between deactivation and deleting their information permanently.  Although Facebook plans to begin updating their privacy policy within the next month or so, implementing the technical changes will be performed over the course of the next year. 

While Facebook was the primary target of the investigation, we believe that the Canadian government’s actions, and Facebook’s response, will have a substantial ripple effect, with businesses carefully reconsidering their terms of use and privacy policies to ensure compliance with both the letter and spirit of privacy laws and regulations throughout the world. 

Click hereto subscribe to digitalhhr.

• Late last week,  Judge Louis Stanton of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that plaintiffs in the high-profile copyright class action case against YouTube could not seek statutory damages for videos that are not registered under US copyright law.   Judge Stanton also dismissed plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim, but did permit claims based on live broadcast footage, which were brought by the English Premier Football League, the lead plaintiff in the case, to proceed. 
• After a lengthy battle, record labels and online radio stations reached an agreement on new royalty rates for music streaming.  The new agreement treats web sites differently based on their size and model.  It only applies to sites making most of their money from streaming music, excluding webcasters that run online music services as a small portion of their total business.  Pure-play internet radio providers will have to pay the greater of 25 percent of revenue or a fee each time a listener hears a song.  The new per stream fees start at .08 cent for each song streamed in 2006 and increases to .14 cent in 2015.  Smaller sites will pay 12 to 14 percent of revenue in royalties.  The new agreement replaces a 2007 royalty rate decision. 
• Rosetta Stone, maker of the popular foreign language software programs, filed a trademark infringement suit against Google alleging that its AdWords program, which lets companies buy advertisements that show up as “sponsored links” next to search results, results in consumer confusion.  The complaint alleges that Google is letting companies attach their ads to trademarked words they do not own, as well as allowing companies to use those trademarked terms in the headlines of their ads.  As a result, a search for a trademarked company name may bring up that company, but it may also bring up results for the trademarked company’s competitors.  In recent years Google has been facing other similar lawsuits over its AdWords program but in April, the 2nd Circuit provided trademark owners with some clarity when it held that Google’s use of the trademarks were “acts of commerce”, reversing a trial court’s ruling and permitting trademark owners to proceed with their suits. 

Of course, in the alternative, AT&T claims that to the extent AT&T is not directly liable, secondary liability attaches via the doctrines of inducement, vicarious and contributory liability—essentially, liability for contributing to and benefiting from the unlawful performance of ringtones by AT&T customers. This argument is likely designed to cut against the exemption codified in the Copyright Act allowing the “performance of a nondramatic literary or musical work … to the public without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage… if there is no direct or indirect admission charge.” (see 17 U.S.C. § 110(4)). This would, in theory, prevent ASCAP from proceeding against individual consumers who, although they may be publicly performing a musical work according to Copyright Act, are doing so without commercial advantage and thus not infringing.

ASCAP also reveals in its motion that it has consistently licensed other mobile carriers’ sale and distribution of ringtones, charging “2% of revenue and an alternative usage-based fee calculation.” In fact, ASCAP claims that prior to the Second Circuit’s 2007 decision that digital downloads of sound recordings do not trigger the public performance right (see United States v. ASCAP, 485 F. Supp. 2d 438 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)) (the “Download Decision”), “very few parties ever questioned or challenged ASCAP on the question of whether ringtones required public performance licenses.”

For business people and transactional lawyers alike, perhaps the most notable takeaway from ASCAP’s motion stems from AT&T’s claim that the ringtone providers (e.g., Jamster, ThumbPlay, etc.), not AT&T, “bear contractual responsibility for securing public performance rights.” In other words, AT&T is stating that if public performance royalties are due, it is the responsibility of content providers, aggregators, and ringtone creators to make payments to the performing rights organizations, not distributors like AT&T and other mobile carriers/network operators. Put simply, this contention highlights the need for parties to these types of agreements to be more explicit than ever about which party will be responsible for performance royalties if and to the extent any public performance rights are implicated. Here, AT&T is pointing the finger at the providers, and to the extent this tactic works, the providers would be responsible for paying royalties based not only on their own revenue, but the mobile carriers’ revenue, which, according to the ASCAP’s standard licensing agreements, is deemed part of the provider’s “client revenue” that is included in the “royalty base” for calculating provider payments to ASCAP. Moreover, any party ultimately saddled with responsibility for making performance payments would not only be required to pay 2% of revenue to ASCAP, but would also be required to remit similar amounts to the two other major performing rights organizations in the U.S. (i.e., BMI, SESAC), raising the total performance royalty rate to more than 6% of revenue–a sizeable payment, and in addition to the mechanical reproduction fees due to those same publishers and writers that are members of the performing rights organizations.

Ultimately, ASCAP, in its attempt to receive royalties from AT&T, devotes the majority of its motion to arguing the extensive nature of ASCAP’s control over the ringtone in an effort to distinguish ringtones from full-audio downloads addressed in the Download Decision, as the outcome of this case may very well turn on the question of the party responsible for triggering the performance. In other words, if an ongoing connection is maintained or required whenever the ringtone is played on a consumer’s phone (e.g., similar to the connection required when a sound recording is streamed over the internet), then the second kind of public performance (i.e., the digital transmission performance) may be triggered. On the other hand, if AT&T can successfully argue that the ringtone is downloaded only once to a consumer’s phone (similar to an iTunes track) without simultaneous or near simultaneous playback and continues to reside on the device exclusively, then merely prompting the playback of same by AT&T for an incoming call should fall more squarely within the confines of the Download Decision.

No matter what side you come down on, ASCAP’s PR machine has been slammed in the past for seeking payment from less than profit driven adversaries, including campfire balladeers such as the Girl Scouts. This time around though, eager to combat a slew of negative news reports trashing ASCAP’s pursuit of ringtone monies, ASCAP moved quickly to address the matter with its own membership, dispatching the following clarification to its writers and composers:

“Bottom line, ASCAP is striving to license those that make a business of transmitting its members’ music. This holds true for any medium where businesses have been built by using this music as content or a service – whether terrestrial broadcast, satellite, cable, Internet or wireless carriers providing audio and video content. To be completely clear, ASCAP’s approach has always been to license these businesses – not to charge listeners/end-users.”

Also, noteworthy in ASCAP’s response, is the fact that ASCAP states that it is “in Federal Rate Court with the two largest U.S. wireless carriers,” evidencing that ASCAP will be staging this battle for ringtone royalties on multiple fronts, including with Verizon, AT&T and possibly ringtone providers supplying the mobile carriers.

Needless to say, this will be a long, hard-fought battle and the public performance organizations, still reeling from the Download Decision (which incidentally is still in the appeals process), will not go quietly when the mobile carriers continue to enjoy revenue in the billions from the sale of ringtones. As always, we will continue to closely monitor this case given the potential impact on our clients’ businesses and the need for licensing and distribution contracts that accurately delineate each party’s roles and responsibilities in this constantly evolving digital space.

• The Performance Rights Act, which was approved by the House Judiciary Committee on May 13th, would levy fees on broadcasters for airing artists’ recordings. An indication of the heat generated by the debate over the PRA emerged this week when the musicFIRST Coalition, however, filed a complaint asking the FCC to investigate whether radio stations have been boycotting artists that support the PRA. The coalition’s filing accuses broadcasters of airing deceptive spots by portraying the proposed royalty as a “tax” and not airing musicFIRST’s own paid ad endorsements. While musicFIRST did not identify any specific station or broadcaster withholding airplay, the coalition alleged that several stations have refused to play an artist’s music based on his or her remarks or affiliation with endorsing the legislation. Spokesman Marty Machowsky said it would only identify specifics if the FCC initiates the proceeding and agrees to keep the information confidential.
• Facebook is now allowing users to select plain-language domain names for profile pages, which up until now, has been delineated by a string of letters and numbers. Facebook plans on allowing trademark holders to protect their marks and mediating all disputes internally. This, however, may not be enough to prevent lawsuits from occurring. Tim Cole, chief register liaison from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, said that even careful mediation processes will not prevent skirmishes from breaking out. ICANN has been involved in quarrels over coveted web site names for more than a decade. We will be looking into this issue in depth in the coming week.
• The AACS Licensing Authority, which licenses AACS content protection scheme (DRM) used in high-definition Blu-ray discs, has included a provision in its Final Adopter Agreement which will lead to the eventual phase out of analog video output from hi-def discs. The goal of phasing out analog is to plug the “analog hole,” where digital content can be copied. The change, however, will not stop direct digital ripping. The efforts are being made in attempts to block means of casual copying, but may not be effective in thwarting commercial pirates.
• The second World Copyright Summit met in Washington, DC last week.  The conference agenda of four main points: New visions for creative industries, Challenges for creators and rights-owners in the digital era, Weather forecast on copyright climate, and Valuing the creative eco-system. Most of the concern was regarding copyright infringements on the Internet. The copyright owners and attendees also discussed the ongoing threat of internet privacy.

We would like to thank Jenny Liang, a summer associate with the Firm, who assisted in preparing this round-up.

• The Electronic Frontier Foundation released a “terms of service” tracker earlier this week. The tracker chronicles older and new terms of service agreements, side by side, and highlights changed provisions. The TOSBack.org site was created in part from an outgrowth of Facebook’s change in its service agreement in February that, under a broad interpretation, provided that Facebook with a license to its members’ uploaded content even after termination of membership. Following criticism in the media and by its members, Facebook backed down and provided for a termination of the license. But the episode revealed the difficulty end users have in evaluating how revised terms of service provisions can have real impact. The “terms of service” tracker currently tracks 44 sites, including Facebook, Google, Wordpress, Data.gov, YouTube, GoDaddy, and eBay.
• For years, content providers have provided information to viewers for free by depending on advertising sales to support its websites. With the decline of the advertising market, advertisers have cut back on spending, forcing content providers to rethink their business model. Many websites are returning to previously used revenue models, including charging for premium services and selling real or virtual goods on its sites. GigaOM, a network of tech-oriented blogs, is one of the latest examples of this trend. GigaOM is charging for a premium subscription research service, which includes more content and analysis, while continuing to provide its basic content for free. We expect to see more business changes of this type in the future
• The increase in digital media possibilities has led traditional storefront retailers to make efforts to capitalize on digital space. Last September, Best Buy bought Napster for $121 million. Now, Best Buy is supplying capital for a new digital media investment fund managed by Fuse Capital. By doing so, Best Buy will be able to hedge its profit opportunities in this fast-changing economy with both its core retail business and its investments in digital media.
• Internet advertisers have been using trackers to follow around users. But now federal regulators are tracking the online advertisers around to ensure that they are being fair to consumers. According to Jessica Rich, the Assistant Director of the Federal Trade Commission’s Privacy & Identity Protection (USPIRG) arm, “[t]he FTC is concerned that data collection is disproportionate to the benefits that are achieved.” In December, the FTC released a draft of behavioral guidelines, calling for more transparency and user control, and allowing opt-ins for sensitive data. Few people actually opt out, however, even when given the opportunity. Yahoo told Congress last year that only 75,000 users a month even visited its privacy page to opt out of targeted ads. Microsoft’s Mike Hintze says that it is unrealistic and that if users are not going to bother to opt out, they are unlikely to opt in. He suggests that more consumer education is necessary, but most consumers just do not care.
• A recent study confirms DRM technology sometimes it makes pirates of even those who are attempting to make legal uses of content. DRM does not discriminate between preventing illegal versus legal uses. As a result, even users who want to use the content for legal purposes must violate anticircumvention laws and in essence become pirates to accomplish their goals. Advocates of the DRM technology assert that despite the inability to accommodate legal uses, there is not an anti-piracy solution that would be able to accommodate all possible legal exceptions. Unfortunately, this has left even legal content users forced to find other means, including piracy, to get around the DRM protection.

• According to a new research study by Nielson Online, social sites like Facebook have surpassed e-mail as the number one online activity, with two-thirds of the world’s population visiting social networking or blogging sites.  What’s more, the “stickiness” of these sites is expanding, with one of every 11 minutes spent online being devoted to social networking activities.  And, in a finding to confirm the frustration and consternation of many teenagers, the fastest growing audience on Facebook is the 35-49 age group.  Which may explain such Facebook groups as “Cool Parents Who Have Facebooks”, although we at digitalhhr can proudly say we have avoided joining that one.)
• In perhaps one more sign of the ubiquity of social networking sites, Citigroup is rolling out a MySpace-branded Visa credit card.  Its marketing pitch is geared to fiscal responsibility-a bit of an ironic twist considering Citibank’s own (mis)adventures in that area.  But Citibank is also trying to preach to its intended audience, providing bonus points to be used for concerts, movie premieres and music downloads, as well as the ability to earn points for donations and charitable deeds.  Citi has also adopted a “manifesto” including such planks as “The environment, the economy, our very security …They’re the consequences of people not thinking about consequences.” 
• In the coming weeks, members of the Online Publishers Association (OPA) such as ESPN, Forbes.com and iVillage plan to roll out new, flashier, in-your-face, ad display units aimed at grabbing visitor attention better than the average banner ad.  While enabling advertisers to get more creative with their online ads, the new formats will hopefully help publishers make more money from fewer ads, since an abundance of ad inventory has been depressing revenue. 
• Continuing the social networking news, Hulu quietly added a new social networking feature that allows users to add friends, recommend videos or shows to one another and leave messages for one another, a la Facebook.  The site, which just celebrated its 1st birthday has even more reason to celebrate.  In just one year, it has become the number two site among the top online video properties, with 9.5 million unique viewers in February viewing 308 million video streams. 
• Google introduced its Google Voice integrated phone service, which was built on top of technology developed by GrandCentral, a company acquired by Google in 2007.  With its host of features, Google seems to be aiming less at replacing any one telephone service-such as VoIP or voicemail transcription or conference calling-and more at insinuating itself in as many aspects of telecommunications services as possible. 

• The FCC announced plans to impose more than $12 million in fines on 600 telecoms that failed to file paperwork last year detailing how they are going to protect the privacy of their customers.  The FCC is seeking the fines because many of the phone companies, internet telephone service providers and calling-card companies that are supposed to make the detailed annual reports are not complying with the current rules. 
• In a week where we’ve read so much about newspapers becoming obsolete, a new survey by The Rosen Group has found that the majority of Americans still consider print to be a vital source for their news and entertainment even though a third of us consider websites to be our number one source of information. 
• According to a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, internet gambling, which was banned in 2006, could bring in over $52 billion in tax revenue over 10 years.  That may be one of the factors driving a decision to reintroduce legislation in Congress to overturn the ban. 
• A two-year old lawsuit filed by Eminem’s production company against Universal Music Group seeking about $1.3 million in unpaid digital music royalties finally went to court this week and its outcome could have a profound effect on the digital music business.  The issue is whether digital music downloads fall under “distribution” or “licensing” agreements — the latter giving artists a 50% take on royalties earned. 

The report, entitled “Self-Regulatory Principles For Online Behavioral Advertising:  Tracking, Targeting, and Technology”, is actually the result of a process begun in late 2007.  At that time, the FTC sought public comment on its preliminary set of principles for self-regulation of online behavioral advertising.  The latest report summarizes the comments received by industry insiders, responds to the main issues raised in those comments and establishes revised principles intended to guide the industry.  Such principles include the encouragement of transparency and consumer control, with the expectation that website operators provide clear and prominent notice regarding behavioral advertising and effective disclosure mechanisms that are separate from their privacy policies so that Internet users understand what information is being collected, how and for what purposes.

However, some say its just a matter of getting Internet users to feel comfortable with what behavioral targeting does and how its used, in an attempt to dispel the widespread notion that its just “creepy” and, ultimately, an invasion of our privacy.  It is certainly a daunting task, especially because much of the technology used to track Internet use is done on the back-end, which is not seen by users.  While this provides efficiency for advertisers and website operators, it makes it more difficult to let users known when they are being tracked. The key issues have been, and will continue to be, notice and choice of consumers.

Although these will continue to be difficult waters to navigate for the foreseeable future, particularly in the mobile space, the advertising community is definitely taking notice that an informed and concerned consumer base needs to be convinced of the benefits of behavioral targeting in practice, as opposed to in theory.  This issue also presents a conundrum for website operators and content owners that are, at all times, attempting to reconcile maximization of user experience with the perception that their users’ privacy is being compromised by technology and the monetization of advertising.  There will undoubtedly be more to discuss on this issue soon. Stay tuned.

• While we haven’t quite figured out if there is a direct link, as the economic news got worse at the end of 2008, online video activity increased.  According to comScore, online viewing reached a record high with U.S. Internet users watching 14.3 billion videos in December.  This was a 13% increase from November.  comScore found that 150 million U.S. users watched an average of 96 videos each and spent more than five hours watching online video during the month.  Read here about how the big video sites split the market.
• While there is little public information available about the negotiations over the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, the proposed multi-national treaty to assist in the enforcement of global IP rights, some leaked language is causing concern.  More information here.  
• The GOP appears to be following in the White House’s footsteps by overhauling its website to be more open and accessible to its Internet-using citizens.  The new site makes it easy to get the latest news, contact representatives through e-mail and even has an API in which developers can create applications that pull data from the site and format it in a number of ways.  Read more here.
• The watchdog group Privacy International has raised concerns about Google’s new phone tracking system, Latitude, which was unveiled this week.  The system allows users to track other people via smartphone.  And while it does have some built-in privacy protections, there are some potential gaps, including the possibility that the phone’s tracking settings could be changed without its owner’s knowledge.  More here.
• In a closely-watched case, defunct BitTorrent search site TorrentSpy has asked a federal appellate court to reverse a judge’s decision ordering the site to pay movie studios $111 million for copyright infringement in which they were trying to protect users’ privacy by purging the records of visitors’ IP addresses.  Read here for more on the ruling and TorrentSpy’s appeal.

While webcasters, satellite radio, cable radio services and all other non-terrestrial broadcasters already pay performance royalties to artists and labels, terrestrial radio stations have always enjoyed an exemption from paying such royalties. This exemption arose in the infancy of the radio industry when broadcasters claimed that radio play served as promotion to drive music sales. They also asserted that compelling them to pay royalties would cripple the emerging radio industry.

Such an argument may be losing its steam since webcasters, satellite radio, cable radio services and all other non-terrestrial broadcasters have paid performance royalties since their inception. In addition, the US is one of the only countries in the world where performance royalties are not paid for radio broadcasts.

We’ll keep a eye on the bill as it is introduced and makes its way through committee.