<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<rdf:RDF
xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"
xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/">

<channel rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/">
<title>Digital Media Lawyer Blog</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/</link>
<description>Published by David Johnson</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-03-10T14:47:11-08:00</dc:date>
<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.33" />


<items>
<rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/ftc_hammer_falls_on_lifelocks.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/keller_v_electronic_arts_court.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/ive_moved_my_practice_to_epste_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/zynga_v_does_dba_easy_chips_ca_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/catsouras_v_california_highway.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/us_v_little_emerging_circuit_s.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/layshock_and_js_the_3rd_circui_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/williams_v_metropcs_consumer_c.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/the_ftcs_privacy_initiatives_p.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/third_education_group_v_phelps.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/nemet_chevrolet_v_consumeraffa_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/apex_technology_v_doe_may_a_co.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/citizens_united_v_fec_supreme.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/making_sense_of_the_fccs_grab_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/major_v_mccallister_browsewrap.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/remedpar_v_allparts_the_other.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/too_soon_to_worry_about_the_an.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/blockowicz_v_williams_online_p.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/sedersten_v_taylor_court_refus.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/isohunt_mystery_resolved_judge_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/what_are_the_threshold_require.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/sony_bmg_v_tenenbaum_judge_pro.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/alamar_ranch_v_boise_district.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/federal_court_upholds_attorney.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/zheng_v_yahoo_us_companies_not_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/amburgy_v_express_scripts_lack_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/jm_test_systems_v_capital_one_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/the_youtube_approach_to_copyri_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/the_gary_fung_isohunt_mystery_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/ftc_v_commerce_planet_can_a_we.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/ubid_v_godaddy_and_weather_und.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/12/morningware_v_hearthware_illin.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/citysearch_click_fraud_class_a.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/lahoti_v_vericheck_how_to_lose.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/apple_v_psystar_installation_o.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/umg_recordings_v_augusto_first.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/maypark_v_securitas_how_far_mu.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/bosh_v_zavala_was_the_courts_o.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/lasco_foods_v_hall_and_shaw_ca.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/update_on_cfaa_circuit_split_d.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/brodsky_v_matchcom_court_uphol.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/doe_v_young_can_a_physician_be_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/the_taggedcom_spam_cases_new_y.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/in_re_ameritrade_accountholder.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/us_v_kilbride_9th_circuits_hol.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/do_i_need_a_privacy_policy_whe.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/11/swartz_v_doe_tennessee_ruling.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/10/usa_v_iconix_a_websites_false_1.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/10/dart_v_craigslist_district_cou.html" />
<rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2009/10/patco_construction_v_ocean_ban_1.html" />
</rdf:Seq>
</items>

</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/ftc_hammer_falls_on_lifelocks.html">
<title>FTC Hammer Falls On LifeLock&apos;s Online Identity Theft Protection Service</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/ftc_hammer_falls_on_lifelocks.html</link>
<description>LifeLock has just agreed to a stipulated judgment under which it will pay the FTC and 35 State attorneys general $12 million to settle claims that its misrepresented the effectiveness of its consumer identity theft protection service.  But the larger question is whether a method does exist that will protect consumers against identity theft.</description>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-03-10T14:47:11-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/keller_v_electronic_arts_court.html">
<title>Keller v. Electronic Arts:  Court Finds that Electronic Arts&apos; Use of Personal Traits in Video Games Violated College Footballer&apos;s Rights of Publicity</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/keller_v_electronic_arts_court.html</link>
<description>How far can a video game designer go in patterning game characters after real life celebrities without violating their publicity rights?  Read today&apos;s post for a case that found that Electronic Arts&apos; NCAA Football game may have crossed the line.</description>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-03-09T12:38:07-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/ive_moved_my_practice_to_epste_1.html">
<title>I&apos;ve Moved My Practice to Epstein, Becker &amp; Green in San Francisco</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/03/ive_moved_my_practice_to_epste_1.html</link>
<description>Wondering why you haven&apos;t seen any posts from my blog in a while?  The answer is that I&apos;ve move my practice to the San Francisco office of Epstein, Beck &amp; Green.  </description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-03-08T15:34:15-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/zynga_v_does_dba_easy_chips_ca_1.html">
<title>Zynga v. Does d/b/a Easy Chips:  California Federal Judge Applies Light Standard for Uncovering Identity of Anonymous Proprietor of On-line Business</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/zynga_v_does_dba_easy_chips_ca_1.html</link>
<description>The standards imposed on plaintiffs seeking to uncover the identity of an anonymous Internet player vary greatly from court to court.  Should these standards be uniform?  </description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-02-22T01:00:57-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/catsouras_v_california_highway.html">
<title>Catsouras v. California Highway Patrol:  California Court Recognizes Family&apos;s Privacy Interest in Death Scene Photos of Deceased Relative</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/catsouras_v_california_highway.html</link>
<description>It is well-established that even a close relative may not recover for an invasion of privacy of another person.  However, in a January 29, 2010 decision, the California Court of Appeal held that family members have a common law privacy right in the death images of a decedent.  Did this opinion do away with old rule against &quot;relational&quot; privacy claims?  Read today&apos;s post to find out.   </description>
<dc:subject>Privacy</dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-02-16T01:21:58-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/us_v_little_emerging_circuit_s.html">
<title>U.S. v. Little:  Emerging Circuit Split on Whether National Community Standards Should Be Applied in Internet Obscenity Cases</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/us_v_little_emerging_circuit_s.html</link>
<description>In a decision in November 2009, the 9th Circuit held that a national standard should be applied in cases dealing with obscenity distributed over the Internet.  In a February 2, 2010 opinion, the 11th Circuit rejected the 9th Circuit&apos;s approach, holding that a local community standard should be imposed in these cases.  Read today&apos;s post to learn why.  </description>
<dc:subject>Internet decency and defamation</dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-02-11T10:54:46-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/layshock_and_js_the_3rd_circui_1.html">
<title>Layshock and J.S.:  The 3rd Circuit Attempts to Define the Circumstances under Which a School Can Punish a Student for Creating a Defamatory MySpace Profile</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/layshock_and_js_the_3rd_circui_1.html</link>
<description>In two opinions issued on February 4, 2010, on cases with virtually identical fact-patterns, the Third Circuit reached opposite conclusions on whether a school could discipline a student for creating a fake and defamatory MySpace profile about his/her school principal.  Read today&apos;s post to learn the distinction that made the difference.  </description>
<dc:subject>Internet decency and defamation</dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-02-09T11:40:51-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/williams_v_metropcs_consumer_c.html">
<title>Williams v. MetroPCS:  Consumer Cannot be Bound by Terms of Contract She Never Received</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/williams_v_metropcs_consumer_c.html</link>
<description>Courts often uphold click-wrap and even browse-wrap agreements.  However, in a recent case, a Florida judge drew the line at enforcing an agreement that a consumer may have never received or been directed to.  </description>
<dc:subject>Internet contracting</dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-02-05T11:05:10-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/the_ftcs_privacy_initiatives_p.html">
<title>The FTC&apos;s Privacy Initiatives Pose a Threat to Online Behavioral Advertising, Despite the Lack of a Clear Congressional or Public Mandate</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/02/the_ftcs_privacy_initiatives_p.html</link>
<description>While the FTC is busy developing policies to further regulate Internet advertising, it may lack statutory authority to enact some of its more aggressive proposals.  It is also unclear that that it has broad public support, as well.  Could this mean that its current initiatives will go nowhere?  </description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-02-03T11:02:50-08:00</dc:date>
</item>
<item rdf:about="http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/third_education_group_v_phelps.html">
<title>Third Education Group v. Phelps:  DMCA Notice and Takedown Procedures Lightly Policed by Misrepresentation Rule</title>
<link>http://www.digitalmedialawyerblog.com/2010/01/third_education_group_v_phelps.html</link>
<description>A recent case from the Eastern District of Wisconsin shows how difficult it can be to recover damages from the sender of a false DMCA notice.</description>
<dc:subject></dc:subject>
<dc:creator>david</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2010-01-27T01:00:47-08:00</dc:date>
</item>


</rdf:RDF>