If you're selling games in New York...

... you risk being put in jail for life. Under a proposed New York law, it would be a felony to dissemintate violent and indecent video games to minors: 3 Games and You've Got 25 to Life

While the law does give some leeway for the sentencing court, it theoretically allows a judge to put someone away for life for selling a copy of, say, Gears of War to a 16 year old who looks 18. Yes, selling a game could come with a life sentence under the new law.

Hmmm... yikes!

WARF responds to stem cell reexam...

... by saying, paraphrasing, of course, "uh, you're wrong. Mouse stuff is not human stuff."

You can read the whole 113 page response here.

New bill = new standards for IT in healthcare?

I haven't reviewed the proposed rules, but it seems so: Federal bill would set healthcare IT standards | WTN:

Asserting that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has failed to advance President Bush's goal of widespread electronic medical record adoption, U.S. Rep. Bart Gordon, D-Tenn., has introduced a bill that would require a federal technology agency to accelerate the integration of healthcare information technology.

CAN-SPAM has few private remedies...

... or at least that's what Western District of Washington seems to imply: Gordon v. Virtumundo, Inc..

The court held that even if a private entity can qualify as an "internet access service" (something the court calls "ambiguous), that entity needs to provide some evidence as to actual harm to "bandwidth, hardware, Internet connectivity, network integrity, overhead costs, fees, staffing, or equipment costs" or other "financial hardships" beyond mere inconvenience.

Hat tip spam notes.

Disclosing a public URL prompts non-lawyer nasty-gram...

... stating that a copy of a blog disclosing the URL has been turned over to the lawyers.

I can only imagine that the lawyer will probably not have a clue. Though, if he did, he'd probably give the client a really weird look.

Can spyware makers sue...

... anti-spyware companies? Zango seems to think so.



Without having seen the complaint, the two "obvious" causes of action might be:

• DMCA
• Tortious Interference

Of course, the defenses are probably better.

Can structured text...

... preclude immunity under the Communications Decency Act? The Ninth Circuit (quickly becoming the CDA clearinghouse circuit) seems to think so.

As we previously explained, an entity cannot qualify for CDA immunity when it is “responsible, in whole or in part, for the creation or development of [the] information” at issue. 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), (f)(3); see also Batzel, 333 F.3d at 1031. Roommate is “responsible” for these questionnaires because it “creat[ed] or develop[ed]” the forms and answer choices. As a result, Roommate is a content provider of these questionnaires and does not qualify for CDA immunity for their publication.

In this case, the structured text was in the form of pre-defined content that a user selects in response to a questionnaire. Roommate.com created the questionnaire. The questionnaire contained questions about living preferences that referred to things like sex and sexual orientation. Arguably, those characteristics are not appropriate criteria under the Fair Housing Act (not an expert, nor do I really know anything about the law).

Too harsh? Maybe. Right decision? Probably.