HHR New Media, Entertainment and Technology Group

On April 7, the Digital HHR team will be presenting “App-endectomy: Removing the Mystery from the App Ecosystem“, the next in its on-going series of live, CLE-accredited webinars.

The explosive popularity of tablets, smartphones and other Internet-connected consumer devices has ushered in a new technology ecosystem driven by Apps. These self-contained software programs have not only provided the stakeholders involved with a compelling way to exploit everything from movies and games to magazines and newspapers, but have created a thriving new marketplace poised for ongoing, accelerated growth. While the stakeholders are many, the myriad of complex business and legal issues facing them are no less staggering in number. For publishers, content creators, App developers, content distributors, aggregators, storefront operators and service providers, the successful navigation of a rapidly evolving landscape of shifting terms and conditions, privacy regulations, content restrictions and corresponding business considerations across multiple devices and platforms has proven a daunting but essential exercise for leveraging the economic opportunities available.

In this CLE-accredited webinar, the DigitalHHR team will explore the critical business and legal challenges associated with the development, publication, distribution, sale and use of Apps. We will discuss the contours of in-App purchases, subscription-based offerings, and “freemium” models, as well as in-App advertising and App-based ad networks. We will analyze the evolving privacy terms and conditions associated with the use of Apps, and the corresponding laws, regulations and case law impacting end user data collection, disclosure and ownership. We will also address the terms and requirements promulgated by the various platform operators, including Apple, RIM (Blackberry) and Google (Android), and how they impact stakeholders’ participation across the different App environments.

The webinar will be held on Thursday, April 7, 2011 from 12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. EDT.

To register, please click here.

Over the last year, we’ve been following the recent trends in Europe regarding “three strikes” legislation, where end-users may be subject to sanction by their ISPs for repeated acts of copyright infringement.  Following passage of the first such law in France last fall, the United Kingdom followed suit in early 2010 with passage of the Digital Economy Act.  While it is too early to say with certainty whether the laws will achieve their stated goal of deterring and ultimately reducing infringement, the debate surrounding these laws and early experience under their enforcement schemes provides insight into whether or not “deputizing” ISPs to police piracy will become more prevalent or whether yet another approach will need to be devised to protect content owners. Continue Reading »

News reports in recent weeks have revealed how disputes over the ownership of certain critical IP may derail eBay’s $1.9 billion deal to sell a stake in the well-known internet communications company Skype.  In the latest development companies owned by the founders of Skype filed additional lawsuits last week against eBay and its future investors. At the heart of the dispute is the peer-to-peer technology called “global index” (“GI”) that is critical to Skype’s success.  Somewhat surprisingly, the GI technology, which was developed by Skype’s founders, Janus Friis and Niklas Zennstrom, is not owned by eBay or Skype.  Rather it is owned by Joltid Ltd., a company controlled by Friis and Zennstrom.  Continue Reading »

The Ninth Circuit will issue an opinion addressing the constitutionality of content-based regulation on the sale and rental of violent video games in the next few months.  Since policymakers are expressing growing concerns over the possible effects of violent video games on the psychological and emotional well-being of children, this decision is expected to play an important role in determining what boundaries, if any, constitute permissible regulation of video game content.

The statute at issue is a 2005 California law that would prevent minors from renting or purchasing violent video games that depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is “especially heinous, cruel, or depraved.”  Retailers who rent or sell such games in violation of the act would face a maximum fine of $1,000 for each violation.

Shortly after this law was enacted, its constitutionality was challenged by the Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association, two trade associations that represent companies in the video game industry.  The groups argued that video games are protected speech under the First Amendment and that the act constituted an impermissible restriction on such speech. The district court agreed with these arguments, holding that the law was unconstitutional and granting a permanent injunction against its enforcement.  Continue Reading »