Source: https://rctlj.org/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:03:33+00:00

Document:
5G capability will be the Federal Communications Commission’s (“FCC”) gift to America by the end of this year. The technology is expected to be built into the networks of carriers such as AT&T, and will be deployed by other major carriers by next year. 5G sparked interest back in 2015 subsequently causing millions to be invested into grants for experimentation. 5G is the “next generation of internet connectivity, essentially offering faster speeds and more reliable connections on smartphones and other devices. . . .” 5G works by utilizing “a higher-frequency band of the wireless spectrum called millimeter wave.” Unfortunately, because the millimeter waves do not travel as far as previous wireless networks, 5G will require more antennas.
 Growing Demands for Computation Power Taxing Networks, WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY (Sept. 21, 2018) https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/f5cae2e5-f4c9-47cf-8725-cfdd7c7eadcf/?context=1000516.
 New Rules for CBRS Band get FCC ok Over Rosenworcel Dissent, WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY (Oct 24, 2018) https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/86baa5d6-5734-4889-9ee1-bf4f966490df/?context=1000516.
 Mike Moore, What is 5G? Everything you Need to Know, TECHRADAR (last updated Oct. 25, 2018) https://www.techradar.com/news/what-is-5g-everything-you-need-to-know.
 Matthew Frankel, What is 5G?, FOOL, https://www.fool.com/knowledge-center/what-is-5g.aspx (last visited Oct. 25, 2018).
 Email from William N. Sosis, NEW JERSEY STATE BAR ASSOCIATION COMMUNITY NET, to Young Lawyers Division (Oct. 8, 2018 7:45PM).
 Streamline Small-cell Deployment act Opponents Cite 5G RF Emission Concerns, Existing Issues, WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY (Oct. 17, 2018) https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/7d06995a-2b6c-4d84-8355-dd864fc713c1/?context=1000516; see also Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by removing barriers to Infrastructure Investment, FCC 18-133 (FCC Sept. 26, 2018) (Declaratory ruling and third report and order); see also STREAMLINE Small Cell Deployment Act, S. 3157, 115th Cong. (2018).
 Streamline Small-cell Deployment act Opponents Cite 5G RF Emissions Concerns, Existing Issues, supra note 8.
 Kelcee Griffis, DC Circ. Won’t Halt FCC’s Next-Gen Rule Amid Challenges, LAW360 (Aug. 15, 2018) https://advance.lexis.com/api/permalink/128a79c9-1579-4328-a26b-948ee1b3b3bd/?context=1000516.
 Id; see also Accelerating Wireless Broadband Deployment by removing barriers to Infrastructure Investment, supra note 8.
Google has been recording and tracking its users whether the location history has been turned on or off. Google even “stores a snapshot of where you are when you open the Maps app.” Even when completing an unrelated or simple search, a user’s longitude and latitude are identified. The study demonstrates that despite a researcher from Princeton using an Android with location history disabled, Google continued to track the researcher and save the location markers. Google continues to store information that is generated by the searches and uses of other applications, such as the Maps app.
Google violates the GDPR and the Data Protection Act of 2018, as they continue to store location data until the user turns off both the Location History and Web & App Activity. Many technology companies, such as Google, have not been compliant with the Act nor have companies been transparent with their privacy settings. Additionally, Google has allowed advertisers to track the success of online advertisements, relying on the location history. Companies are demonstrating they are slyly repudiating GDPR and Data Protection laws, by making privacy options difficult for its users.
The GDPR is relevant to technology companies as it is an EU law that alters the collection and usage of personal data. Companies even outside of the EU are required to follow the rules if they offer their amenities or services throughout the EU—including Google. The big tech companies should abide by regulations such as the GDPR, for their own benefit and for their consumers.
 Jane Wakefield, Google tracks users who turn off location history, BBC News (last visited Sept. 1, 2018, 1:15 PM), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-45183041?ns_source=facebook&ocid=socialflow_facebook&ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbcnews.
 Chris Foxx, Google and Facebook accused of breaking GDPR laws, BBC News (last visited Sept. 1, 2018, 3:00 PM), https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44252327.
The spate of school shootings, particularly Parkland, has reinvigorated calls for gun control. Emerging 3D gun printing technology adds a new dimension to the gun control debate. 3D gun printing, while still developing, raises calls for regulation because it enables anyone, regardless of age, mental health, or criminal history, to download and print weapons that are very difficult to detect even with metal detectors, without the registration and traceability of standard guns. Online distribution of downloadable and printable gun plans raises risks that courts and regulators are beginning to confront. While violent crimes involving 3D printed guns have yet to be reported, lawmakers and politicians are beginning to act in anticipation of widespread availability of such technology.
In 2013 when Cody Wilson’s Defense Distributed published blueprints for 3D printed guns to Defense Distributed’s website, the US Department of State deemed that a violation of the Arms Export Control Act and, exercising its jurisdiction under the Act, demanded their removal. In 2015, Wilson sued the US government on free speech grounds. Yet, despite prevailing against Defense Distributed’s attempts to get a TRO pending trial, the Government (now under Trump) settled the case last July. The settlement stipulates that banning online publication of 3D gun plans violated Defense Distributed’s First Amendment rights.
Subsequently, nine states (Washington, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Oregon, Maryland, New York and the District of Columbia) jointly sued the Trump administration for its decision to allow 3D printable guns online, specifically naming Wilson’s organization. In addition, Attorneys General from 21 different states sent a joint letter to the State Department and Department of Justice, requesting an injunction blocking the sharing of 3D printed gun plans.
As recently as August 1, 2018, a federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against online distribution of 3D printable gun files by chief distributor Defense Distributed. However, Defense Distributed has circumvented that order by releasing the files through a different website, a tactic that could be exploited by others to bypass such court rulings. This has added significance because, once available, consumers can redistribute blueprints without obstruction.
While effectiveness of litigation is yet undetermined, the recent settlement sets a dangerous legal precedent for unhindered online publication of 3D gun plans. However, strong opposition from Democratic lawmakers, who have introduced legislation in Congress, and from gun safety groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence to open access to 3D gun blueprints, and recent legal actions, signify a growing awareness of the serious threat to public safety posed by the proliferation of 3D gun printing. Time will tell if lawmakers and public officials act in anticipation of that threat before it ushers in a new wave of school and other mass shootings.
 Jeremy Ghez, Gun Control in America: Why This Time It Could Be Different, (Feb. 27, 2018), forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/hecparis/2018/02/27/gun-control-in-america-why-this-time-it-could-be-different/#7b80f97254af.
 Katilin Benz and Sean Hollister, 3D Printed Guns: 19 states sue, nationwide restraining order granted, (Aug. 3 2018), cnet https://www.cnet.com/news/3d-printed-guns-19-states-sue-nationwide-restraining-order-granted/.
 Id.; see also 22 • U.S.C.§ 39 (2012).
 Defense Distributed v. United States Dept. of State 838 F.3d 451, 453-476.
 Benz, Hollister, supra note 1.
 See Defense Distributed, 838 F.3d 451, 453-476.
Tyler Koslow, 3D Printed Gun Report – All You Need to Know in 2018, (Aug. 1, 2018), all3dp, https://all3dp.com/3d-printed-gun-firearm-weapon-parts/.
 Deirdre Shesgreen and Josh Hafner, Courts in three states bar release of 3D-printable gun blueprints, (Jul. 31, 2018), usa today, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/31/3-d-printable-guns-donald-trump/870557002/.
When you envision the word mining, you assume extracting some metal or mineral from the Earth. However, this is 2018 and the new mining extracts bitcoins from the internet.
Since its inception in 2008 by a mysterious author named Satoshi Nakamoto, Bitcoin has catapulted the financial industry into a new realm of digital currency. This digital currency uses a decentralized public ledger that records all information known as blockchain. Blockchain is not controlled by any single institution but instead maintained by its anonymous users. To use blockchain, a user must have a “node” which is a computer that runs the bitcoin software. Furthermore, some nodes are “miners” which collect unresolved transactions into blocks adding them to the blockchain.
The process which verifies and adds transactions to the blockchain is called mining. Each time a miner adds a new block to the blockchain she is rewarded with bitcoins. To add a block, a user must compose new transactions and then decipher a problematic mathematical puzzle. The difficulty of the puzzles varies on the number of miners in the network. The more miners, the more difficult the computational puzzles are. The network adjusts the difficulty because it wants to keep the rate of new blocks constant. Not only does mining incentivize users, it also acts as the sole function in the bitcoin operation that “enables the currency to be safely and predictably created without” a centralized system.
Bitcoin is contributing to global warming because it takes an astonishing amount of electricity to mine. It is estimated that the bitcoin network total energy usage per year is 31 terawatt-hours per year which is more than what 150 countries produce annually. For more perspective, Visa estimated energy use is equivalent of 50,000 US households to perform 350 million transaction, whereas bitcoin’s 350,000 transactions energy equivalent is 2.8 million US households. Industry experts estimate that by 2019 the bitcoin network will need more electricity than the entire United States.  Bitcoin is on a trajectory that is not only unsustainable but also dangerous to the world.
 Bitcoin Mining, supra note 6.
Two decades have passed since the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) was enacted on October 28, 1998 by President Clinton. This landmark legislation was a significant step in updating U.S. copyright law to keep pace with the Internet. It was intended to be a quick, cheap, and easy means to resolve online copyright disputes, but it’s now showing its age. Due to changes in data consumption and a dramatic increase in data volume, the DMCA is no longer able to keep up with the explosion of on-line infringement possibilities (now including music and video), and its safe harbor protection for Online Service Providers (OSPs) is being strained by countless infringements not envisioned twenty years ago.
Why do we care? We care because OSPs are more likely to automate their takedown process and remove content, and even whole websites, rather than be subject to losing their safe harbor status. We care because today more users are using Internet-based services, not just for entertainment, but also for essential life services, such as emergency notifications and phone connections. The loss of these services, even for a short period, has far-reaching effects.
The first issue with the DMCA is the vagueness of the safe harbor language addressing the Repeat Infringer Termination Policy (R.I.P.) threshold. The DMCA does not explain how this threshold is to be “reasonably implemented,” and the courts have differed in their interpretation of a reasonable threshold. Most recently, the court in BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications found that Cox should lose its safe harbor provision for not having a reasonable R.I.P., although they followed a thirteen-strike policy. Because of these inconsistencies, OSPs are now more likely to follow the DMCA process strictly and first remove content with little regard to repercussions for users. Instead, these OSPs will allow the process (Figure 1) to determine if and when the content is reinstated.
While the DMCA was revolutionary twenty years ago, an arbitrary takedown process is no longer viable. The increase in the number of Internet users and the essential need for Internet services, on a consistent basis, requires changes to the DMCA. Reform of the safe harbor provisions to accommodate the changes in technology, the changes in the areas in which violations are being found, and the enormous growth in Internet users is needed to ensure essential services are not halted due to a rogue bot.
So, Happy Birthday DMCA . . . and may there be many more!
 Your Website May Be 84 Years Old in Internet Time, The Profitable Firm, (Nov. 14, 2014), https://theprofitablefirm.com/website-may-84-years-old-internet-time, (“Just as one year of human life equals seven years for dogs, there is also a life-multiplier for Internet-years. Some estimate it to be as high as 27 to one, which makes this Act now a staggering 540 years-old!”).
 Tom Hale, How Much Data Does The World Generate Every Minute?, IFL Science, (Jul. 26, 2017: 9:38 PM), https://www.iflscience.com/technology/how-much-data-does-the-world-generate-every-minute, (“In 2016 there were 3.7 billion Internet users and 2.5 quintillion bytes of data generated each day.”).
 Mitchell Zimmerman, Your DMCA Safe Harbor Questions Answered, Fenwick & West, (2017), https://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/DMCA-QA.pdf, (“The four safe harbors cover claims arising from the OSP having: (1) Hosted, stored and made infringing matter available if it was stored at the direction of users (the Storage Safe Harbor, § 512(c)); (2) Transmitted, routed or provided connections (for example, telephone lines) for digital online connections for infringing material transmitted by users (the Transmission Safe Harbor, § 512(a)); (3) Cached infringing material on a system or network, when the material was initially made available by someone else (the Caching Safe Harbor, § 512(b)); or (4) Provided links or referred users to online locations containing infringing matter or activity (the Search Engine or Information Location Tools Safe Harbor, § 512(d))”).
 Mark Surman, Internet Access is an Essential Part of Life, But The Quality of That Access Can Vary Wildly, Community Based Solutions, (May 5, 2017), https://qz.com/976013/internet-access-is-an-essential-part-of-life-but-the-quality-of-that-access-can-vary-wildly.
 17 U.S.C. § 512 (c)(i)(1)(A) (1998).
 Perfect 10, Inc. v. CCBill LLC, 481 F.3d 751 (9th Cir. 2007), (The Ninth Circuit in Perfect 10 v. CCBill suggested reasonableness “if, under ‘appropriate circumstances,’ the service provider terminates users who repeatedly or blatantly infringe copyright.”); see also Corbis Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 351 F. Supp. 2d 1090, 1104 (W.D. Wash. 2004) (“Some courts have held that this determination requires proof the OSPs have actual knowledge of the ‘user’s blatant, repeat infringement of a willful and commercial nature.’”).
 BMG Rights Mgmt. (US) LLC v. Cox Communs., Inc., 881 F.3d 293 (4th Cir. 2018).
 Anthony Rutkowski, DMCA Compliance Becomes a Serious Obligation for ISPs, Yaana, (Feb. 15, 2018), https://www.yaanatech.com/dmca-compliance-becomes-serious-obligation.isps.
 A Guide to YouTube RemovalsA Guide to YouTube Removals, Electronic Frontier Foundation, (Aug. 30, 2018), https://www.eff.org/issues/intellectual-property/guide-to-youtube-removals (“Description of DMCA takedown steps. Step 1: The rightsholder initiates the process by submitting a DMCA notice; Step 2: The OSP is obligated to initiate a takedown, as long as the notice is properly completed; Step 3 is one of two paths: 3a- the user accepts the takedown and the process ends or 3b – the user files a Counter Notice indicating why the content is not an infringement. If a valid Counter Notice is filed, then Step 4 has one of two paths: Step 4a -the rightsholder has 14 days to file a lawsuit or Step 4b – if 14 days have lapsed and no lawsuit has been filed, the OSP automatically restores the content”).
 Haley Fine, Consequences of BMG Rights Management v. Cox Communications, Public Knowledge Blog, (Dec. 1, 2016), https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/consequences-of-bmg-rights-management-v-cox-communications.
 Gina Hall, How Many Copyright Takedown Notices Does Google Handle Each Day? About 2 Million, (Mar. 7, 2016), https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2016/03/07/how-many-copyright-takedown-notices-does-google.html.
 Jonathan Bailey, The DMCA’s Spam Problem, (Apr. 20, 2015), https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2015/04/20/the-dmcas-spam-problem.
 Mark Fahey (@marktfahey), Blame the Robots for Copyright Notice Dysfunction, The Big Crunch with Eric Chemi, (Mar. 31, 2016: 12:13 PM ET), https://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/29/blame-the-robots-for-copyright-notice-dysfunction.html.
Author AdministratorPosted on November 1, 2018 Leave a comment on Happy 20th Birthday DMCA! Is it Time Now for a Safe Harbor Face Lift?
Since the year 2000, online player-to-player communication has become a paramount component in products released in the video game industry. Whereas traditional video games were centered around a quest or adventure which the player would try to complete, technological advancements have allowed players to communicate with fellow console owners around the world. The early stages of this player-to-player system began with consoles such as Atari ST and Macintosh, that allowed users to connect their devices via a MIDI input/output wire. In 1993, gaming platforms were expanded to include player-to-player competition through local area networks. Sega Dreamcast was one of the first internet based consoles to gain widespread popularity, and it has been regarded as a precursor in online gaming in that the internet was at the core of the console’s setup and general functions. In the early 2000’s, internet capabilities developed, computer processor technologies improved and the cost of technology dropped; allowing for easier and more efficient access to multiplayer internet opportunities offered by gaming consoles at that time. In more recent years many consoles have an online component that improves the gameplay and interactivity of its games.
Telecommunication companies have set a 2020 deadline for the unveiling of functional 5G networks, legislators at the local, state, and federal levels will need to actively consider the legal effects that the new technology will have on our society. 5G networks will allow downloadable bandwidth speeds of up to 20 gigabytes per second (to put this into perspective 4G LTE networks, currently the fastest available, allow 1 gigabyte per second). When fully integrated into our society, 5G could make the most recent technological advancements seem archaic. The potential advancements that 5G will provide, as well as the means of installing the network itself, will create an urgent need to reexamine an expansive list of laws ranging from privacy, to property rights.
5G will jumpstart the next leap in technological advancements. The ability to transfer almost 20 times the amount of data that current networks can provide will be a catalyst for the redefinition of every day apps and social media, as well as powering both the “internet of things” and self-autonomous vehicles. However, with new technology comes a need to reexamine the law, and how it will need to adapt in a constantly changing world. Exponentially increased data speeds will allow an individual to stream a high definition movie to their phone with the ease of watching a Snapchat video. It will also allow individual users to upload such videos. Theoretically, the way in which people interact on social media could transition to predominantly video messages. to copyright can become more when everyone can upload a movie about their daily life on a whim. Yet even these legal arguments pale in comparison to the issues of liability when 5G networks allow self-driving cars to communicate regularly with each other and their surroundings, effectively eliminating the need for a human driver.
Before the advancements can become a reality, the network itself must be installed, which requires hurdling a litany of property rights issues. 5G networks are powered by small-cell radio antennas. and cellular service by numerous large cell towers that broadcast a signal to miles of surrounding area mall cell systems will shrink that broadcast down to a mere couple of dozen feet. nstead of one cell tower covering a area, companies will roll out hundreds of small antennas in discrete locations, creating a web-like network. With shorter distances to travel, larger amounts of information can be transferred between antennas, and with more reliable accuracy.
cells being installed within right of way. Predominantly, telecom companies have turned to utility poles and street signs as reliable mounting points for 5G radios. In response, local municipalities have begun to fight, and sometimes prohibit, companies from intruding on public right of way for further utility installations. Companies have turned to either case law, the Telecom Act of 1996, and more recent state legislation in order to prevent local government blocking of network installations. Often, the issue at hand is negotiating rental fees for mounting antennas within the public right of way. While municipalities seek higher fees to justify public interest, telecom companies argue that high rental fees will greatly undermine the efforts of creating the next wireless internet network.
he issue turns to state legislators, who can either limit or enhance the power of municipalities.
Author AdministratorPosted on November 1, 2018 Leave a comment on Web 3.0- A Decentralized Future?

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 512
 § 512
 § 512
 § 512
 § 512
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.