US court renews permission to NSA to collect phone metadata

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has renewed permission to the U.S. government for a controversial program to collect telephone metadata in bulk.

The office of the Director of National Intelligence said the government filed an application with the FISC seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and the court renewed that authority, which expired on Friday.

The information was being disclosed “in light of the significant and continuing public interest in the telephony metadata collection program,” and an earlier decision by DNI James R. Clapper to declassify certain information relating to the program, it said.

The secret court has been set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which requires the government to obtain a judicial warrant for certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations. (

The Guardian newspaper published in June a copy of a secret April 25 order from FISC in Washington, D.C., which required Verizon to produce call records or telephony metadata on an ongoing daily basis until expiry of the authorization on July 19.

The requirement to turn in metadata applied to calls within the U.S., and calls between the U.S. and abroad, and did not cover communications wholly originating or terminating outside the U.S. Metadata was defined to include communications routing information such as session-identifying information, trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of calls.

The program does not allow the government to listen in on anyone’s phone calls, and the information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber, Clapper said in a statement in June, which also confirmed the authenticity of the order published by the British newspaper.

The authorization required the production of telephony metadata under the “business records” provision of the FISA Act.

In response to the disclosure about the collection of phone data of Verizon customers, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in June in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the “mass call tracking” by the U.S. National Security Agency was in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, giving U.S. residents the rights of free speech and association, and the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It asked the court to order an end to the tracking of phone records under the Verizon order or any successor order.

In a letter last week to Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the U.S. Department of Justice said intelligence tools that NSA uses to identify the existence of potential terrorist communications within the data “require collecting and storing large volumes of the metadata to enable later analysis.” If the data is not collected and held by the NSA, the metadata may not continue to be available for the period that it “has deemed necessary for national security purposes” as it need not be retained by telecommunications service providers.

Internet companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have been demanding for greater transparency in the orders of the FISC, after Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor behind the leak of the Verizon order, also disclosed documents that suggested that the NSA has access in real-time to content on their servers. The companies have denied the claims, and want FISC to remove restrictions that prevent them from disclosing requests for customer data under FISA. Yahoo appears to have persuaded FISC to release its secret order and parties’ briefs in a 2008 case. The court ordered the government recently to declassify the documents, as it prepares to publish the court’s opinion in a redacted form.

US court renews permission to NSA to collect phone metadata

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has renewed permission to the U.S. government for a controversial program to collect telephone metadata in bulk.

The office of the Director of National Intelligence said the government filed an application with the FISC seeking renewal of the authority to collect telephony metadata in bulk, and the court renewed that authority, which expired on Friday.

The information was being disclosed "in light of the significant and continuing public interest in the telephony metadata collection program," and an earlier decision by DNI James R. Clapper to declassify certain information relating to the program, it said.

The secret court has been set up under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which requires the government to obtain a judicial warrant for certain kinds of intelligence gathering operations. (

The Guardian newspaper published in June a copy of a secret April 25 order from FISC in Washington, D.C., which required Verizon to produce call records or telephony metadata on an ongoing daily basis until expiry of the authorization on July 19.

The requirement to turn in metadata applied to calls within the U.S., and calls between the U.S. and abroad, and did not cover communications wholly originating or terminating outside the U.S. Metadata was defined to include communications routing information such as session-identifying information, trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of calls.

The program does not allow the government to listen in on anyone's phone calls, and the information acquired does not include the content of any communications or the identity of any subscriber, Clapper said in a statement in June, which also confirmed the authenticity of the order published by the British newspaper.

The authorization required the production of telephony metadata under the "business records" provision of the FISA Act.

In response to the disclosure about the collection of phone data of Verizon customers, American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in June in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, claiming that the "mass call tracking" by the U.S. National Security Agency was in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, giving U.S. residents the rights of free speech and association, and the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. It asked the court to order an end to the tracking of phone records under the Verizon order or any successor order.

In a letter last week to Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, the U.S. Department of Justice said intelligence tools that NSA uses to identify the existence of potential terrorist communications within the data "require collecting and storing large volumes of the metadata to enable later analysis." If the data is not collected and held by the NSA, the metadata may not continue to be available for the period that it "has deemed necessary for national security purposes" as it need not be retained by telecommunications service providers.

Internet companies like Google, Microsoft and Yahoo have been demanding for greater transparency in the orders of the FISC, after Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor behind the leak of the Verizon order, also disclosed documents that suggested that the NSA has access in real-time to content on their servers. The companies have denied the claims, and want FISC to remove restrictions that prevent them from disclosing requests for customer data under FISA. Yahoo appears to have persuaded FISC to release its secret order and parties' briefs in a 2008 case. The court ordered the government recently to declassify the documents, as it prepares to publish the court's opinion in a redacted form.

New Jersey Supreme Court rules warrants needed for phone tracking

Cellphone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy of their cellphone location information, and police must obtain a search warrant before accessing that information, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled Thursday.

"When people make disclosures to phone companies and other providers to use their services, they are not promoting the release of personal information to others," wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in an unanimous ruling on an appeal. "Instead, they can reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private."
The issue of boundaries in the use of cellphone data by law enforcement agencies has figured in other courts and state legislatures. The Montana legislature passed a law recently requiring police and other agencies to obtain a search warrant from a court before tracking a person using location information from an electronic device.

Federal courts have been divided on the issue of cellphone tracking by law enforcement. But historically the New Jersey Constitution has offered greater protection to New Jersey residents than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Rabner observed. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
"Under settled New Jersey law, individuals do not lose their right to privacy simply because they have to give information to a third-party provider, like a phone company or bank, to get service," the judge wrote. Evaluating the legal implications of cellphone technology, the judge wrote that "as a general rule, the more sophisticated and precise the tracking, the greater the privacy concern."
Police tracked the defendant Thomas Earls, wanted for burglary and receiving stolen property, to a motel using location information provided by T-Mobile without warrant, three times in one evening, on a cellphone the police believed the defendant had been using.
The trial court found that Earls had a reasonable expectation of privacy under state law and the police should have obtained a warrant to track him through cell-tower information. The court, however, admitted the evidence under an emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.

The New Jersey decision is the first to establish a constitutional right in location data since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in United States v. Jones, a GPS tracking case in which several Justices expressed concern about the collection of location data, Electronic Privacy Information Center said in a statement.
EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers were allowed as amici curiae to advise the court in the case.

Anticipating "extensive disruption in the administration of justice," the court decided that its ruling will apply only to the Earls case and to future cases. The warrant requirement is to take effect in thirty days from Thursday's ruling to provide adequate time to the attorney general of the state to circulate guidance to state and local law enforcement officials, the court ruled.

During a six-month period last year, in 85 percent of 600 cases for which cellphone information was sought, warrants were obtained, according to information provided by the state to the court. Local or municipal police departments are said to have handled about sixty cases in which no warrants were sought. The court, however, raised the possibility that the data may have overstated the number of cases the state specifically sought warrants.

The Earls case has been referred to the appellate court to  determine whether the emergency aid doctrine applies. The court observed that the emergency aid doctrine allows police to enter a dwelling without a warrant "for the purpose of protecting or preserving life, or preventing serious injury."

NSA Phone Snooping Cannot Be Challenged in Court, Feds Say

The Obama administration for the first time responded to a Spygate lawsuit, telling a federal judge the wholesale vacuuming up of all phone-call metadata in the United States is in the “public interest,” does not breach the constitutional rights of Americans and cannot be challenged in a court of law.

Thursday’s response marks the first time the administration has officially answered one of at least four lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of a secret U.S. snooping program the Guardian newspaper disclosed last month. The administration’s filing sets the stage for what is to be a lengthy legal odyssey — one likely to outlive the Obama presidency — that will define the privacy rights of Americans for years to come.

The New York federal district court lawsuit, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union, demands a federal judge immediately halt the spy program the civil rights group labeled as “one of the largest surveillance efforts ever launched by a democratic government.”

The Guardian last month posted a leaked copy of a top secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court opinion requiring Verizon Business to provide the National Security Agency the phone numbers of both parties involved in all calls, the International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number for mobile callers, calling card numbers used in the call, and the time and duration of the calls.

The suit, brought on behalf of the ACLU’s employees, alleges breaches of the First Amendment and the Fourth Amendment and names Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, NSA Director Keith Alexander and FBI Director Robert Mueller, among others.

“… the alleged metadata program is fully consistent with the Fourth Amendment. Most fundamentally, the program does not involve “searches” of plaintiffs’ persons or effects, because the collection of telephony metadata from the business records of a third-party telephone service provider, without collecting the contents of plaintiffs’ communications, implicates no ‘legitimate expectation of privacy’ that is protected by the Constitution,” (.pdf) David S. Jones, an assistant United States attorney, wrote U.S. District Judge William H. Pauley in a Thursday filing.

Because the Fourth Amendment is not breached, it follows that the First Amendment is not violated either, Jones wrote.

The government said that, despite it scooping up telephony metadata from “certain telecommunication service providers,” it only queried the database using “300 unique identifiers” searching for terrorist activity last year under a standard of “reasonable, articulable suspicion.” Because the ACLU cannot prove that any of its employees were surveilled under the program, they have no right to sue under a legal concept known as standing.

“Indeed, the chances that their metadata will be used or reviewed in a query are so speculative that they lack Article III standing to seek the injunctive relief requested in their July 2 letter,” the government wrote.
The law that has been authorizing the surveillance is the Patriot Act — adopted six weeks after the 2001 terror attacks — and greatly expanded the government’s power to intrude into the private lives of Americans.

The suit challenges one of the most controversial provisions of the Patriot Act — Section 215 — that allows the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to authorize broad warrants for most any type of records, including those held by banks, doctors and phone companies. Lawmakers have repeatedly voted to prevent the act from expiring. The government only needs to show that the information is “relevant” to an authorized investigation. No connection to a terrorist or spy is required.

The government’s filing urged Judge Pauley to allow the spying to continue. “The requested injunction is irreconcilable with the public interest, and should be denied.”

The suit says the spying as outlined by the Guardian and confirmed by the government breaches the constitutional rights of ACLU employees. Among other things, it chills their First Amendment speech rights and breaches the Fourth Amendment because the secret court is authorizing the surveillance against Americans without particularized suspicion that they have engaged in any criminal, terrorist activity.
The government has publicly maintained that Americans have no constitutional privacy rights connected to their business records with the phone company.

The Obama administration’s filing comes days after a broad coalition of groups supporting everything from religion, drugs, and digital rights to guns and the environment sued the NSA in a San Francisco federal court on virtually the same allegations.

Other pending Spygate cases include one from the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which has petitioned the Supreme Court to stop the surveillance program. Larry Klayman, the former chairman of Judicial Watch, has lodged a suit challenging the surveillance in a District of Columbia federal court.

New Jersey Supreme Court rules warrants needed for phone tracking

Cellphone users have a reasonable expectation of privacy of their cellphone location information, and police must obtain a search warrant before accessing that information, the Supreme Court of New Jersey ruled Thursday.

"When people make disclosures to phone companies and other providers to use their services, they are not promoting the release of personal information to others," wrote Chief Justice Stuart Rabner in an unanimous ruling on an appeal. "Instead, they can reasonably expect that their personal information will remain private."
The issue of boundaries in the use of cellphone data by law enforcement agencies has figured in other courts and state legislatures. The Montana legislature passed a law recently requiring police and other agencies to obtain a search warrant from a court before tracking a person using location information from an electronic device.

Federal courts have been divided on the issue of cellphone tracking by law enforcement. But historically the New Jersey Constitution has offered greater protection to New Jersey residents than the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Rabner observed. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

"Under settled New Jersey law, individuals do not lose their right to privacy simply because they have to give information to a third-party provider, like a phone company or bank, to get service," the judge wrote. Evaluating the legal implications of cellphone technology, the judge wrote that "as a general rule, the more sophisticated and precise the tracking, the greater the privacy concern."

Police tracked the defendant Thomas Earls, wanted for burglary and receiving stolen property, to a motel using location information provided by T-Mobile without warrant, three times in one evening, on a cellphone the police believed the defendant had been using.

The trial court found that Earls had a reasonable expectation of privacy under state law and the police should have obtained a warrant to track him through cell-tower information. The court, however, admitted the evidence under an emergency aid exception to the warrant requirement.

The New Jersey decision is the first to establish a constitutional right in location data since the U.S. Supreme Court decided in United States v. Jones, a GPS tracking case in which several Justices expressed concern about the collection of location data, Electronic Privacy Information Center said in a statement.
EPIC, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey and Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers were allowed as amici curiae to advise the court in the case.

Anticipating "extensive disruption in the administration of justice," the court decided that its ruling will apply only to the Earls case and to future cases. The warrant requirement is to take effect in thirty days from Thursday's ruling to provide adequate time to the attorney general of the state to circulate guidance to state and local law enforcement officials, the court ruled.

During a six-month period last year, in 85 percent of 600 cases for which cellphone information was sought, warrants were obtained, according to information provided by the state to the court. Local or municipal police departments are said to have handled about sixty cases in which no warrants were sought. The court, however, raised the possibility that the data may have overstated the number of cases the state specifically sought warrants.

The Earls case has been referred to the appellate court to  determine whether the emergency aid doctrine applies. The court observed that the emergency aid doctrine allows police to enter a dwelling without a warrant "for the purpose of protecting or preserving life, or preventing serious injury."

Aggressive game advertising to children prohibited by German Federal Court

Aggressive advertising messages aimed at children urging them to purchase goods for the game “Runes of Magic” are not permitted, the German Federal Court ruled.

The Federation of German Consumer Organizations (VZBV) sued game maker Gameforge because it tried to sell armor and weaponry directly to children, the VZBV said in a news release on Thursday. The offer was made on the Runes of Magic website. After a link was clicked, a Web page offering various products was opened, the VZBV said.

Direct exhortation to children in this way is prohibited, ruled the German Federal Court on Wednesday, said court spokeswoman Dietlind Weinland in an email on Thursday. Therefore, Gameforge should refrain from using terms like “grab the opportunity to...” while advertising paid in-game items to children, Weinland said.
Runes of Magic is a game that can be downloaded for free. Gamers can then purchase upgrades and accessories in the game to advance, the VZBV said.

By marketing paid items in a game that make the participation more attractive, game makers exploit the inexperience of children, said the VZBV. But the ruling means that advertising messages aimed at children with a link to paid accessories for the computer game “Runes of Magic” is not permitted, the VZBV added.
The virtual goods have to be paid for with real money, the federation said. In 2009 for instance, purchasing 3,000 diamonds for Runes of Magic cost the player almost €100 ($130), while a riding animal could be bought for 199 diamonds, it said.

Buy more stuff! The decision of the court is not yet final, Weinland said. Since the defendant was not represented by counsel before the Federal Court, a “default judgment” was given, she said. The company can oppose the decision within two weeks, after which the matter would be considered further by the Federal Court, she said. If the verdict is not opposed it will enter into force.

Gameforge on Thursday did not immediately comment on the verdict.

People in the game industry have been discussing the marketing of game items to children for a while.
“Children in some cases are being monetized MUCH more aggressively with in-app purchases than adults are, because developers understand that children are more vulnerable and wish to profit on this. There is nothing illegal about this in any country that I am aware of,” said Ramin Shokrizade, an Applied Virtual Economist and Monetization Designer who consults game makers, in an email on Thursday.

Game maker Zynga for instance uses a technique that is called “fun pain” to entice gamers to purchase items. Shokrizade currently consults to companies with a combined market capitalization of over $300 billion worldwide, according to his LinkedIn profile.

Game maker Zynga for instance uses a technique that is called “fun pain” to entice gamers to purchase items, he wrote in a recent blog post titled Monetizing Children.

“The idea is to inflict some very uncomfortable situation on a player in their game, and then offer to remove that situation in return for money. While the vast majority of adults will make the assessment that it is in their best interest to not spend the money and to just exit the application that is designed to hurt them, it is biologically harder to come to this conclusion if the decision maker is a child,” Shokrizade wrote in the blog post.

Therefore, the use of real money or its equivalent should be removed as an option in games without the explicit informed consent of parents, Shokrizade said in his blog, adding that children are not in a good position to judge the value of purchases in virtual currencies.

“I don’t think in app purchases (IAPs) belong anywhere in games marketed to minors. If your response is ‘oh that is going to make it a lot harder to sell microtransactions’, then I’m going to suspect this is an admission that you know children are more vulnerable to suspect monetization methodologies,” he added in his blog.

It is inevitable that some companies will move toward even more aggressive exploitation of children in games, wrote Shokrizade. “To solve the problem governments and people need to first understand the problem,” he said in his email. The ultimate result will be national regulation, which is already happening in some parts of Asia, he added.

Appeals Court: Morgan Creek Owes $5.7 Million Over Robert De Niro Film

A California appeals court Friday ruled that Morgan Creek can't escape money that's due to a Japanese distributor for the 2006 film The Good Shepherd, directed by Robert De Niro and starring Matt Damon, Angelina Jolie and Alec Baldwin.

As The Hollywood Reporter detailed in September, Morgan Creek was facing a potential restraining order and a frozen bank account after refusing to pay up after an arbitrator's decision in favor of Japanese distributor Toho-Towa Co. Morgan Creek had to deliver $5.7 million out of contractual obligations that required the producer to make up any shortfall in the film's box-office performance from its cost to distribute. The Good Shepherd earned only $3.3 million in Japan, which led Toho-Towa to demand repayment of 434 million yen.

As Toho-Towa pursued the money, looking to serve notice on third parties that any money credited to Morgan Creek should be diverted to Toho-Towa, an attorney for Morgan Creek told THR at the time that the company's ex-attorneys had screwed up by not making a bigger issue of the fact that Toho-Towa's agreement was with Morgan Creek International rather than Morgan Creek Productions.

STORY: Kevin Costner Sued by Morgan Creek in Bankruptcy Court

That was challenged at the appellate stage, and the result is not in Morgan Creek's favor.

California appeals judge Vincent O'Neill had to analyze whether a trial judge was properly authorized to add Morgan Creek Productions to a judgment against Morgan Creek International B.V. and Morgan Creek International Ltd.

The appellant argued that there was "no alter ego liability" on MCP's part.

O'Neill agrees the the lower court made no error.

"There is substantial evidence for the trial court's finding that MCP, B.V. and Ltd. were part of a single business enterprise," he writes.

EXCLUSIVE: Morgan Creek Battling $5.7 Million Debt, Restraining Order, Frozen Bank Account

Among the cited evidence was that the three entities were owned by the same person, James G. Robinson, that they all exploited the same assets and that work was performed by employees of MCP.

The judge also says in the ruling:

"There is also substantial evidence for the court's conclusion that it would be inequitable to uphold B.V.'s separate existence under the circumstances of this case. Toho-Towa negotiated the distribution rights to the Picture with MCP. When that negotiation was concluded, MCP told Toho-Towa that the contract would actually be with B.V., not MCP, because this was how MCP conducted its distribution business. MCP assured Toho-Towa that there would be sufficient assets to pay Toho-Towa any monies due under the agreement. Toho-Towa was not told and did not know that B.V.'s financial operations were structured by MCP in such a way that it never received any money from its licensees, and thus would not have funds to meet its payment obligations under the agreement. In sum, it would be inequitable to permit MCP, the alter ego of B.V., to shift liability to B.V. after ensuring that B.V. would have no funds to pay its debts."

Finally, the judge declines to overturn the ruling based upon the former attorney's alleged failings.

The impact of the ruling to Morgan Creek could be large. Besides fighting with this Japanese distributor over money owed, the company also has been battling Kevin Costner over profits from the 1991 blockbuster film Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. In that case, Morgan Creek also has attempted to shift liability to its international division now in bankruptcy.

Boston Bombings Suspect To Appear In Survivor-Packed Court

When the young man who stands accused in the Boston Marathon bombings makes his first court appearance Wednesday afternoon, survivors of the explosions that killed three people and wounded more than 260 are expected to be in the room, The Associated Press reports. So are relatives of those killed and wounded.

The wire service adds:

"The [Boston] courthouse is expected to be jammed for 19-year-old Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's appearance. A spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's office said space is being reserved in the main courtroom for victims' families, but she wouldn't indicate how many planned to attend. Court officials have set aside an overflow courtroom to broadcast the court hearing for the media."

Tsarnaev hasn't been seen since the evening of April 19, when he was captured in the Boston suburb of Watertown after an intensive manhunt. He had suffered some gunshot wounds and has been held in a federal prison hospital.



On the court's website, it says his arraignment is scheduled for 3:30 p.m. ET. We'll watch for news from the proceeding and update.

Authorities say Tsarnaev and his 26-year-old brother, Tamerlan, who died of injuries suffered during a gun battle with police earlier on April 19, set the bombs that exploded near the marathon's finish line four days before. The three people killed were 8-year-old Martin Richard of Dorchester, Mass., 29-year-old Krystle Campbell of Medford, Mass., and 23-year-old Lu Lingzi of China, a student at Boston University.

The brothers are also the lone suspects in the shooting death of MIT police officer Sean Collier, 26, on April 18. They also carjacked an SUV that evening, authorities say.

So far, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction and a series of other charges, including "bombing of a place of public use."

Ethnic Chechens, the brothers allegedly became radicalized in recent years. Authorities say they found messages that they believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wrote in which he indicated that they were trying to avenge the deaths of other Muslims during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The brothers were young boys when they were brought to the U.S. by their parents. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a U.S. citizen in 2012. Tamerlan Tsarnaev was a legal resident of the U.S.

Pakistan court orders YouTube block to continue

A court in Pakistan has ordered a continuation of the block on YouTube in the country, after the government argued that a removal of the ban would have implications on law and order in the country.

YouTube was banned in Pakistan in September over a controversial video clip, called "Innocence of Muslims," which mocked Prophet Muhammad. The country's telecom regulator said it was blocking the entire site as it was not able to separately block individual URLs (uniform resource locators) linking to copies of the video.

The plaintiff, Bytes For All, Pakistan, has argued that the PTA has Internet filtering technology that is already used to selectively filter Internet content, said Shahzad Ahmad, country director, of the civil rights group on Friday. A report released in June by Citizen Lab, based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, claimed, for example, that Pakistan is actively filtering content, with Netsweeper filtering devices actively used to censor content on an ISP-wide level in Pakistan.

Bytes for All had asked the court for an interim order unblocking YouTube. "We wanted the government to go ahead and block the 700 to 800 URLs with the blasphemous content, and remove the block on the rest of the site," Ahmad said. He alleged that the government is intent on continuing to block YouTube as part of its overall plan to control Internet access in the country. The YouTube issue is part of a broader petition by Bytes For All against Internet censorship in the country.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah of the Lahore High Court noted Thursday that the ban on YouTube is negatively impacting citizens, specially students, and asked the government to resolve the issue with information technology experts, and submit a report by July 25 on how to deal with the blasphemous URLs and make the rest of the platform available, Ahmad said.

Google last year blocked the controversial video in some countries like India and Saudi Arabia where it was illegal, but not in Pakistan where it did not have a local site. The company said at the time that where it had "launched YouTube locally and we are notified that a video is illegal in that country, we will restrict access to it after a thorough review."

Pakistan has a history of limiting access to YouTube videos.

Follow me on Twitter @sajilpl

Court in Pakistan orders YouTube block to continue

A court in Pakistan has ordered a continuation of the block on YouTube in the country, after the government argued that a removal of the ban would have implications on law and order in the country.

YouTube was banned in Pakistan in September over a controversial video clip, called "Innocence of Muslims," which mocked Prophet Muhammad. The country's telecom regulator said it was blocking the entire site as it was not able to separately block individual URLs (uniform resource locators) linking to copies of the video.

The plaintiff, Bytes For All, Pakistan, has argued that the PTA has Internet filtering technology that is already used to selectively filter Internet content, said Shahzad Ahmad, country director, of the civil rights group on Friday. A report released in June by Citizen Lab, based at the Munk School of Global Affairs at the University of Toronto, claimed, for example, that Pakistan is actively filtering content, with Netsweeper filtering devices actively used to censor content on an ISP-wide level in Pakistan.

Bytes for All had asked the court for an interim order unblocking YouTube. "We wanted the government to go ahead and block the 700 to 800 URLs with the blasphemous content, and remove the block on the rest of the site," Ahmad said. He alleged that the government is intent on continuing to block YouTube as part of its overall plan to control Internet access in the country. The YouTube issue is part of a broader petition by Bytes For All against Internet censorship in the country.

Justice Mansoor Ali Shah of the Lahore High Court noted Thursday that the ban on YouTube is negatively impacting citizens, specially students, and asked the government to resolve the issue with information technology experts, and submit a report by July 25 on how to deal with the blasphemous URLs and make the rest of the platform available, Ahmad said.

Google last year blocked the controversial video in some countries like India and Saudi Arabia where it was illegal, but not in Pakistan where it did not have a local site. The company said at the time that where it had "launched YouTube locally and we are notified that a video is illegal in that country, we will restrict access to it after a thorough review."

The Internet company did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Court lifts ban on gay marriage in California

1 of 3. Rainbow colored flags fly outside City Hall in San Francisco, California June 28, 2013. The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday handed a significant victory to gay rights advocates by ruling that married gay men and women are eligible for federal benefits and paving the way for same-sex marriage in California.
SAN FRANCISCO - Same-sex marriages were set to resume in California on Friday, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a surprise order lifting an injunction preventing the unions.
The order came in response to an opinion released Wednesday by the U.S. Supreme Court that effectively killed a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriages in the state.
Within moments of the ruling, couples, officials and activists began to converge on San Francisco City Hall, where unions were due to resume immediately.
"On my way to S.F. City Hall," tweeted the state's attorney general, Kamala Harris. "Let the wedding bells ring!"
Harris arrived with her arm around a key lawyer in the case, as the couple at the heart of a case challenging the state's ban waited eagerly for their marriage license to be issued.
"This is really a great day," said Cindy Stier, who with her fiancee Kristin Perry filed the lawsuit against Proposition 8, the ballot initiative that outlawed same-sex marriage in California in 2008.
The 9th Circuit had been expected to wait 25 days before lifting the injunction so the Supreme Court would have time to release a formal order. But the judges decided to act instead on Friday, a move that would allow the marriages to begin in advance of Gay Pride weekend.
"The stay in the above matter is dissolved effective immediately," the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said in its ruling.

Analysis: Brazil's mass protests peak, ball in politicians' court

BRASILIA - The massive protests that paralyzed Brazil last week appear to have peaked after sending the country's shaken political establishment a loud message that it needs to change its ways.

It's now up to the politicians to deliver improvements to the country's deficient public services and more transparent and accountable government demanded by frustrated Brazilians, or the crescendo of angry protests could suddenly return.

While smaller protests continue on a daily basis, the number of demonstrators this week was much lower than the one million people who took to the streets a week ago, due to a mix of protest fatigue and achievement of the protesters' initial aim of drawing attention to their grievances.

Tens of thousands may still protest around Sunday's Confederations Cup final soccer match between Brazil and Spain in Rio de Janeiro, the locus of violence so far, but the end of the soccer tournament will deprive protesters of a high-profile stage on which to air their grievances.

"The streets are saying to the politicians: you have heard our voices, now let's see what you will do with this," said Marcos Nobre, a political philosophy professor at the University of Campinas and author of a new e-book on the popular revolt.

"The protests have peaked but they are not over. This is a truce as Brazilians wait to see how the political system responds," Nobre added.

Politicians in Brasilia are rushing to clean up their act to appease the anger directed at them by the protesters. Congress is fast-tracking measures against corruption. One of its members, convicted of embezzling public funds, on Friday became the first federal lawmaker to go to jail in 25 years.

But analysts say deeper reforms will be needed to restore public credibility in a political class viewed as self-serving, overpaid and corrupt.

The civil unrest, something rarely seen in recent decades in South America's economic powerhouse, was sparked by a small protest against higher public transportation fares in Sao Paulo.

The ensuing police crackdown, which touched a nerve in a country with a history of violent political repression under a military dictatorship that ended in 1985, fanned demonstrations nationwide even after cities agreed to roll back the fare increases.

The protests were fueled by widespread frustration with Brazil's deplorable education, health and transportation services, rising crime and cost of living, as well as over-spending on stadiums that will host next year's World Cup soccer tournament.

Six people died in the protests, including a young man who fell from an overpass in Belo Horizonte on Wednesday as riot police fired tear gas and rubber bullets into marchers to stop them from reaching a stadium where a Confederations Cup game was underway.

The Confederations Cup is a warm-up for the 2014 World Cup, which Brazil will host in 12 cities.

The protesters used the Confederations Cup to tell the world that Brazil is not just a land of soccer and that their priorities are improved education, healthcare and public transportation rather than costly mega-events like the World Cup and the Olympic Games set for 2016 in Rio de Janeiro.

TAKEN BY SURPRISE

The protests took Brazilian politicians by surprise and showed how out of touch they were with an increasingly middle-class nation that is more informed and unwilling to tolerate a political system long plagued by patronage and corruption.

The leaderless protests expressed a wide array of demands, but one common target, Nobre said, was "a corrupt political system that does not represent this new democratic political culture that has arisen mainly through social networks."

The protests sent shockwaves through Brazil's Congress and prompted frenetic activity by lawmakers who have rushed to pass legislation that had been sitting around for years, notably a bill toughening sentences for corruption.

"The political class fears the consequences of this popular revolt. Politicians are keenly aware that if we do not change the way we do things we are going to be trampled on in next year's elections," Alvaro Dias, leader of the opposition PSDB party in the Senate, told Reuters. "Congress is making up for lost time by rushing through bills."

PRESIDENT SCRAMBLING

President Dilma Rousseff has received scant praise for her response, even within her own party, and elections are coming.

Brazil's first female president is expected to run for a second term next year and her popularity had already begun to slip before the protests on concerns about rising inflation and slow growth in the world's seventh-largest economy.

Rousseff surprised Brazil on Monday by announcing plans to convene a constituent assembly to adopt political reforms. Within less than 24 hours, she had withdrawn the idea in the face of strong criticism even from within her ruling coalition.

Her Workers' Party government is now working with its allies to hold a quick plebiscite this year that will ask Brazilians what political reforms they want, a plan that is seen as overhasty damage control by opposition leaders such as Dias.

Even members of her unwieldy 16-party coalition would rather Congress draw up the reforms first and then seek the nation's approval in a yes-or-no referendum that could be added to the ballot in the general election slated for October 2014.

If the response to the protests is unsatisfactory for Brazilians, the protests would re-ignite, Nobre said. And if they continue into 2014 they could endanger the holding of the 32-nation World Cup - an ideal occasion for new demonstrations - and disrupt campaigns of politicians seeking re-election.

Socialist lawmaker Chico Alencar says the survival instinct of Brazil's politicians has made them react quickly to the loud criticism from the streets, but changes modernizing Brazil's democratic system will come only if popular pressure continues.

"If the protests fizzle out, conservative forces that want to maintain the status quo will regain control of the political agenda," he said.

Top EU court says printers can be taxed to compensate rights holders

Europe's top court ruled Thursday that it is legal for countries to impose a levy on printer manufacturers in order to compensate rights holders for unauthorized reproduction of their work.

Under European Union law, authors and other rights holders have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit reproduction of their protected works, but individual member states may provide exceptions or limitations to those rights.

In many cases, making private copies, including reproductions on paper, of works by rights holders is permitted. However if national authorities decide to permit exceptions they must ensure that copyright holders receive "fair compensation." This grants E.U. member states broad discretion in determining how to impose levies.

The European Court of Justice made its ruling after it was asked by the Federal Court of Justice in Germany to examine a case brought by VG Wort, the authorized copyright-collecting society representing authors and publishers of literary works in Germany.

VG Wort had requested that authorities order Canon, Epson, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, Kyocera and Xerox to provide information on the nature and quantity of printers that they have sold since 2001. In addition, VG Wort claims that Kyocera, Epson and Xerox should pay it remuneration by way of a levy on personal computers, printers and plotters marketed in Germany between 2001 and 2007.

The court said it is open to Germany implementing a system in which owners of any printer, including multifunction devices, contribute to compensating authors for harm suffered by reproduction of their protected works. This means a levy on printer makers, the cost of which the manufacturers can pass on to customers.

The court does however limit the amount that can be levied. "The overall amount of fair compensation must not be substantially different from the fixed amount owed for the reproduction obtained through the use of one single device," the ruling said.

The court also said that even if rights holders don't take any measures to prevent copying of their work, such as using the EURion Constellation (a pattern of dots that will cause modern color copiers to lock up when they detect it), they are still entitled to fair compensation, since the use of such measures is voluntary.

However, E.U. countries may take into account whether such measures were used when determining the rights holders' compensation in order to encourage their use.

Follow me on Twitter @sajilpl

Top EU court says printers can be taxed to compensate for piracy losses

Europe's top court ruled Thursday that it is legal for countries to impose a levy on printer manufacturers in order to compensate rights holders for unauthorized reproduction of their work.

 

Under European Union law, authors and other rights holders have the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit reproduction of their protected works, but individual member states may provide exceptions or limitations to those rights.

 

In many cases, making private copies, including reproductions on paper, of works by rights holders is permitted. However if national authorities decide to permit exceptions they must ensure that copyright holders receive "fair compensation." This grants E.U. member states broad discretion in determining how to impose levies.



The European Court of Justice made its ruling after it was asked by the Federal Court of Justice in Germany to examine a case brought by VG Wort, the authorized copyright-collecting society representing authors and publishers of literary works in Germany.

 

VG Wort had requested that authorities order Canon, Epson, Fujitsu, Hewlett-Packard, Kyocera and Xerox to provide information on the nature and quantity of printers that they have sold since 2001. In addition, VG Wort claims that Kyocera, Epson and Xerox should pay it remuneration by way of a levy on personal computers, printers and plotters marketed in Germany between 2001 and 2007.

 

The court said it is open to Germany implementing a system in which owners of any printer, including multifunction devices, contribute to compensating authors for harm suffered by reproduction of their protected works. This means a levy on printer makers, the cost of which the manufacturers can pass on to customers.

 

The court does however limit the amount that can be levied. "The overall amount of fair compensation must not be substantially different from the fixed amount owed for the reproduction obtained through the use of one single device," the ruling said.

 

The court also said that even if rights holders don't take any measures to prevent copying of their work, such as using the EURion Constellation (a pattern of dots that will cause modern color copiers to lock up when they detect it), they are still entitled to fair compensation, since the use of such measures is voluntary.

 

However, E.U. countries may take into account whether such measures were used when determining the rights holders' compensation in order to encourage their use.

 

Follow me on Twitter @sajilpl

NPR Special Coverage: Court Issues Opinions On Major Cases

Listen to NPR's Special Coverage Of The Supreme Court Decisions
The U.S. Supreme Court issued opinions on four major cases this week that dealt with same-sex marriage, affirmative action in college admissions and the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In an NPR special, journalists and guests discussed the court's decisions and the implications of the rulings going forward.
Host: Linda Wertheimer
Guests: Ron Elving, NPR senior Washington editor; Nina Totenberg, NPR legal affairs correspondent; Tom Goldstein, publisher of and contributor to SCOTUSblog; Wendy Kaufman, NPR correspondent; and Michael Fauntroy, associate professor of political science at Howard University
Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin: The court issued an opinion Monday in a case that was a challenge to the University of Texas' affirmative action admissions process. Abigail Fisher said she was denied admission to the university because of race. In a 7-1 vote, the court sidestepped the underlying issue of the case and instead sent the case back to the lower courts with instructions to conduct a more thorough factual inquiry. The justices ruled that the lower court "did not hold the university to the demanding burden of strict scrutiny articulated" in an earlier Supreme Court ruling — 2003's Grutter v. Bollinger.
(Read the ruling)
Shelby County v. Holder: On Tuesday, the court struck down what is seen as the linchpin of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. By a 5-to-4 vote, the court invalidated the formula — adopted most recently in 2006 — used to determine which states and local governments had to get federal approval for changes in their voting laws. The decision frees nine mostly Southern states from this "pre-clearance." Many voting-rights advocates were angered and dismayed by the court's decision, and critics say it could lead to more lawsuits. (Read the ruling)
United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry: Both of these cases dealt with the issue of same-sex marriage, but in different ways. In United States v. Windsor,
the court ruled 5-4 on Wednesday to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act, the 1996 federal law that confines marriage to a man and a woman. As NPR's Liz Halloran reports, the court's decision does not embrace a national constitutional right to same-sex marriage but makes married gay couples living in states where their unions are legal eligible for federal benefits already enjoyed by married heterosexual Americans.
Hollingsworth v. Perry
involved California's controversial Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriages in the state. The court ruled in a 5-4 decision, with Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority, that supporters of the law did not have standing to bring the case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to challenge a lower court's ruling that invalidated the law. While this allows same-sex marriages to continue in California, it does not have broader implications across the country, and the justices avoided the underlying issues. (Read both rulings with annotations)
 

Court Overturns DOMA, Sidesteps Broad Gay Marriage Ruling

Plaintiff Edith Windsor,of New York, waves to supporters in front of the Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday, after the court heard arguments on her Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) case.

The Supreme Court issued rulings on two highly-anticipated cases on gay marriage today. By 5-4, it ruled the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman, is unconstitutional.

But in a separate ruling, it declined to take on the broader issue of gay marriage. The court decided supporters of Prop 8, a 2008 ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriages in the state, did not have standing to bring the case to the court.

NPR's Carrie Johnson explains: "By a holding of 5-4 with Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority, the Supreme Court rules the petitioners lack standing so the court avoids the underlying issues, remands and wipes away the decision by 9th Circuit Court of appeals, which means for now the lower court ruling invalidating California's Prop 8 stands."

That means gay marriages in California may resume but the ruling does not have a broader implication across the country.

The Defense of Marriage Act case is simpler. As SCOTUSblog reports, the court struck down the federal law because it denies same-sex couples the "equal liberty" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.

The 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton, barring federal recognition of same-sex marriages for purposes such as Social Security survivors' benefits, insurance benefits, immigration and tax filing.

Section 3 of the law defines marriage as "a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife" and a spouse as "a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife." That provision had been struck down by eight lower courts before the Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling in United States v. Windsor
.
This decision means that legally married same-sex couples are now entitled to the same federal benefits as married opposite sex couples.

The majority opinion was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented.

In Hollingsworth v. Perry
, Chief Justice Roberts was joined by Scalia, Ginsburg, Breyer and Kagan. Kennedy filed a dissent in which Thomas, Alito and Sotomayor joined.
SCOTUSblog has this "plain English" explanation of what happened in the Prop 8 case:

"After the two same-sex couples filed their challenge to Proposition 8 in federal court in California, the California government officials who would normally have defended the law in court, declined to do so. So the proponents of Proposition 8 stepped in to defend the law, and the California Supreme Court (in response to a request by the lower court) ruled that they could do so under state law. But today the Supreme Court held that the proponents do not have the legal right to defend the law in court. As a result, it held, the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the intermediate appellate court, has no legal force, and it sent the case back to that court with instructions for it to dismiss the case."

Update at 11:37 a.m. ET. 'An Exalted Conception':

In his dissent in the DOMA case, Scalia basically argued the people should be allowed to rule themselves. He writes:

"This case is about power in several respects. It is about the power of our people to govern themselves, and the power of this Court to pronounce the law. Today's opinion aggrandizes the latter, with the predictable consequence of diminishing the former. We have no power to decide this case. And even if we did, we have no power under the Constitution to invalidate this democratically adopted legislation. The Court's errors on both points spring forth from the same diseases root: an exalted conception of the role of this institution in America."

Update at 11:29 a.m. ET. Equal Protection:

The majority opinion in the DOMA case is worth noting. Korva has been sifting through it and of note is that Justice Kennedy wrote his opinion saying DOMA violates the Constitution's equal protection clause.

He writes quoting Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno:

"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. The Constitution's guarantee of equality 'must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot' justify disparate treatment of that group."

Kennedy goes on:

"DOMA writes inequality into the entire United States Code. The particular case at hand concerns the estate tax, but DOMA is more than a simple determination of what should or should not be allowed as an estate tax refund. Among the over 1,000 statutes and numerous federal regulations that DOMA controls are laws pertaining to Social Security, housing, taxes, criminal sanctions, copyright, and veterans' benefits. DOMA's principal effect is to identify a subset of state-sanctioned marriages and make them unequal. The principal purpose is to impose inequality, not for other reasons like governmental efficiency.

"DOMA's unusual deviation from the usual tradition of recognizing and accepting state definitions of marriage here operates to deprive same-sex couples of the benefits and responsibilities that come with the federal recognition of their marriages. This is strong evidence of a law having the purpose and effect of disapproval of that class. The avowed purpose and practical effect of the law here in question are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States."

Update at 11:10 a.m. ET. 'Immense Victory':

Legal scholar Jeffrey Toobin tells CNN that the DOMA case is an "immense victory" for proponents of gay marriage.

On Prop 8, Toobin said, the court did not go as far as they may have liked.

"The court could have said all 50 states should have gay marriage," Toobin said. They didn't but it "certainly looks like the court may be moving in that direction."

Update at 10:50 a.m. ET. The Law Of The Land:

David Boies, one of the attorneys fighting Prop 8 in the Supreme Court, said this was a victory.

On the steps of the Court, he said in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the court could not get to the merits of the case. But the DOMA case made it clear that the court would agree that banning gay marriage is a violation of the constitution.

"When that case comes," Boies said, "marriage equality will be the law of the land."

 

Supreme Court Expected To Issue Historic Rulings On Gay Marriage

Gay rights activist Vin Testa of DC waves a flag outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Tuesday in Washington, DC.
Gay rights activist Vin Testa of DC waves a flag outside the U.S. Supreme Court building on Tuesday in Washington, DC.

We're expecting history this morning. To cap off what's already been an extraordinary and dramatic 2012 term that brought rulings on affirmative action and voting rights, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down two rulings today that could shape the future of same-sex marriage in the country.

NPR's Nina Totenberg wrapped up the two cases like this for our Newscast unit:

"One case tests the federal defense of marriage act, known as DOMA. The law bars federal benefits to same sex couples who are married in states where such unions are legal. Those challenging the law contend that it unconstitutionally denies them the equal protection of the law and that it also violates the Constitution by refusing to recognize state endorsed legal marriages. The second case, from California, is an outright challenge to state laws that bar same sex marriage. Same sex couples are challenging California's ban as a denial of their constiutional right to equal treatment."

The cases are United States v. Windsor
and Hollingsworth v. Perry. The court is expected to begin handing down decisions at 10 a.m. ET. Below, we've embedded live coverage from our friends at SCOTUSblog. They'll start sending dispatches at around 9 a.m. ET.
 

Supreme Court Will Rule on Same-Sex Marriage on Wednesday

Same-sex marriage supporters outside the Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has announced that the remaining opinions of the current term will be released on Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST. As a result, two eagerly awaited rulings on same-sex marriage will be delivered tomorrow.

In a week that has seen the high court direct lower courts to exercise more scrutiny toward affirmative action programs, strike down an important provision of the Voting Rights Act and toughen the standards by which labor lawsuits are brought, the justices' opinions on the constitutionality of restrictions on gay marriage have been left until the final day.

In March, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two same-sex-marriage cases. Hollingsworth v. Perry challenges the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot measure that enacted changes to the state's constitution to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." United States v. Windsor considers the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

STORY: Supreme Court Bans Patenting of Breast Cancer Gene Publicized by Angelina Jolie

Based on who has and hasn't delivered opinions thus far this term, it's speculated by some legal commentators that Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy are most likely to be writing the majority opinions in the marriage cases.

The suspense and buildup to the final day will make for another early morning in California, where citizens await the fate of Prop 8.

It will also give the cable news networks a chance to lead into Supreme Court coverage. Today, MSNBC was the first to break in with news of the rulings.

The blow to the section of the Voting Rights Act that dealt with subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance, thus making it tougher to enforce the 1960s civil rights law, is a leading story for most of the major news outlets today.

STORY: Supreme Court's Defense of Marriage Act Hearing: What Hollywood Is Saying

President Obama released a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" with the Court's decision in the Voting Rights Act case.

"For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans.  Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," he said.

"As a nation, we’ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote. But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists. And while today’s decision is a setback, it doesn’t represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination. I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process."

 

Appeals Court Upholds College Student's $675,000 Piracy Penalty

In the long-running case of Joel Tenenbaum, who was ordered in 2009 by a jury to pay $675,000 for illegally downloading and sharing 30 songs online, the First Circuit Court of Appeals decided on Tuesday that the penalty should stand.

The penalty came to $22,500 for each song infringed, which Tenenbaum argued was unconstitutionally excessive under the due process clause.

But in a case that was first brought in 2007 as part of the RIAA's aborted legal campaign against individual file-sharers, the appeals court doesn't see anything wrong with that.

"Tenenbaum carried on his activities for years in spite of numerous warnings, he made thousands of songs available illegally, and he denied responsibility during discovery," says the appellate court. "Much of this behavior was exactly what Congress was trying to deter when it amended the Copyright Act. Therefore, we do not hesitate to conclude that an award of $22,500 per song, an amount representing 15% of the maximum award for willful violations and less than the maximum award for non-willful violations, comports with due process."

Tenenbaum argued that the actual injury to the record labels was $450, the cost of the 30 albums.

The appeals court retorts, "But this argument asks us to disregard the deterrent effect of statutory damages, the inherent difficulty in proving damages in a copyright suit, and Sony's evidence of the harm that it suffered from conduct such as Tenenbaum's."

In making the ruling, the First Circuit had to analyze different precedents for how to apply damages and settled on one brought in a Supreme Court case that held that a statutory damage award violates due process only "where the penalty prescribed is so severe and oppressive as to be wholly disproportioned to the offense and obviously unreasonable."

Punishing piracy with a large award doesn't meet that test because Congress designed statutory damages to be a deterrent, the judges conclude.

 

Supreme Court Will Rule on Same-Sex Marriage on Wednesday

Same-sex marriage supporters outside the Supreme Court

U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has announced that the remaining opinions of the current term will be released on Wednesday at 10 a.m. EST. As a result, two eagerly awaited rulings on same-sex marriage will be delivered tomorrow.

In a week that has seen the high court direct lower courts to exercise more scrutiny toward affirmative action programs, strike down an important provision of the Voting Rights Act and toughen the standards by which labor lawsuits are brought, the justices' opinions on the constitutionality of restrictions on gay marriage have been left until the final day.

In March, the Supreme Court heard arguments in two same-sex-marriage cases. Hollingsworth v. Perry challenges the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, a 2008 ballot measure that enacted changes to the state's constitution to say that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." United States v. Windsor considers the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which restricts federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples.

STORY: Supreme Court Bans Patenting of Breast Cancer Gene Publicized by Angelina Jolie

Based on who has and hasn't delivered opinions thus far this term, it's speculated by some legal commentators that Justice Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy are most likely to be writing the majority opinions in the marriage cases.

The suspense and buildup to the final day will make for another early morning in California, where citizens await the fate of Prop 8.

It will also give the cable news networks a chance to lead into Supreme Court coverage. Today, MSNBC was the first to break in with news of the rulings.

The blow to the section of the Voting Rights Act that dealt with subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance, thus making it tougher to enforce the 1960s civil rights law, is a leading story for most of the major news outlets today.

STORY: Supreme Court's Defense of Marriage Act Hearing: What Hollywood Is Saying

President Obama released a statement saying he was "deeply disappointed" with the Court's decision in the Voting Rights Act case.

"For nearly 50 years, the Voting Rights Act – enacted and repeatedly renewed by wide bipartisan majorities in Congress – has helped secure the right to vote for millions of Americans.  Today’s decision invalidating one of its core provisions upsets decades of well-established practices that help make sure voting is fair, especially in places where voting discrimination has been historically prevalent," he said.

"As a nation, we’ve made a great deal of progress towards guaranteeing every American the right to vote. But, as the Supreme Court recognized, voting discrimination still exists. And while today’s decision is a setback, it doesn’t represent the end of our efforts to end voting discrimination. I am calling on Congress to pass legislation to ensure every American has equal access to the polls. My Administration will continue to do everything in its power to ensure a fair and equal voting process."