As Socially Aware readers know, social media is transforming the way companies interact with consumers. Learn how to make the most of these online opportunities while minimizing your company’s legal risks at Practising Law Institute’s (PLI) 2018 Social Media conference, to be held in San Francisco on Thursday, February 1st, and in New York City on Wednesday, February 14th; both events will be webcasted. The conference will be chaired by Socially Aware co-editor John Delaney, and our other co-editor, Aaron Rubin, will also be presenting at the event.

Topics to be addressed will include:

  • The new business opportunities—and legal risks—that social media is providing for businesses
  • What every company should know about online contractual eco-systems
  • How to avoid running afoul of the law when employing social media influencers and using marketing tools like user-generated content, hashtags and native advertising online
  • The privacy-related developments that have arisen in connection with geo-location tracking and interest-based advertising
  • How to minimize the risks that accompany social media use in the workplace

In addition, an in-house panel will provide creative solutions to real-world social-media-related issues and address emerging social media trends.

Don’t miss this opportunity to get up-to-date information on the fast-breaking developments in the critical area of social media so that you can most effectively meet the needs of your clients.

For more information or to register, please visit PLI’s website here. We hope to see you there!

The European Union (EU) has made reform of the e-commerce rules in Europe one of its main priorities for 2018.

The European Commission has already published two proposed Directives relating to cross-border e-commerce but legislative progress has been slow—a situation that the Commission plans to correct in 2018.

The Commission’s stated aim is to establish a more harmonised set of rules for the supply of digital content and sale of online goods across the EU, and to make it easier and less costly for businesses to engage in cross-border commerce. But what most e-commerce providers will focus on is the increased rights for EU consumers, particularly in the context of defects. The new rules will apply to online e-commerce providers, whether EU-based or not.

These changes are part of a wider programme of reform affecting all businesses operating in the Technology, Media and Telecoms (TMT) sectors in Europe.

Background

The European Union’s 2018 Work Programme sets out a challenging agenda of legislative and regulatory change for the TMT sectors, to be delivered in conjunction with the EU’s Digital Single Market (DSM) strategy. The Work Programme includes a list of the pending legislation that the Commission wants to have delivered most swiftly to European citizens as part of the DSM strategy. Any business with digital or technology operations in the EU will need to monitor and react to the EU’s planned changes.

The Commission launched its DSM strategy in May 2015. We have written a number of articles following the DSM’s progress: at its inception, one year in and in 2017 following a mid-term review. With the Commission still waiting for a number of its proposals to be delivered, 2018 is a key year in the life of the DSM.

The DSM strategy is broken down into three “pillars” and 16 Key Actions. The first “Key Action” is to develop rules to make cross-border e-commerce easier, including harmonised rules on contracts with consumers and other consumer protection when buying online. Two proposed Directives relating to cross-border e-commerce were issued relatively quickly – firstly, a proposed Directive on the supply of digital content (Digital Content Directive) and, secondly, a proposed Directive on online and other distance sales of goods (Online Goods Directive) (together, the “Proposed Directives”).

In a 2016 blog post we explored the scope, content and likely impact of the Proposed Directives across the EU generally (and in the UK and Germany specifically). In this alert, we review the progress that has been made so far and look ahead at the likely impact of these Directives in 2018.

The Digital Content Directive

At present, some EU Member States (such as the UK, the Netherlands and Ireland) have introduced legislation to govern the sale of digital content to consumers; other member states apply existing rules on the sale of goods or services that were not intended for digital content. That makes it very hard to apply EU-wide principles on the sale of digital content. Depending on the member state, the sales contract could be considered as a sales contract, as a services contract or as a rental contract. And then there’s the question of whether consumer sales law is applicable to digital content: in Germany and in Italy, a consumer is protected under consumer sales law when it comes to digital content, and the courts qualify intangible goods as a moveable object; whereas in Norway, the online supply of digital content is considered a service contract, and consumer sales law is not applicable.

The draft Digital Content Directive will harmonise the rules that apply to the provision of digital content to EU consumers, including rules on the remedies to which consumers are entitled for allegedly defective content. If any digital content is defective, firstly the EU consumer will be able to request that the defect be fixed – with no time limit on the ability to make that request—and, secondly, the burden of proof is reversed so that it will be the supplier’s responsibility to prove that the defect did not exist at the time of supply. See a more detailed summary here.

The rules would apply: (i) regardless of the method of sale, and (ii) to both digital content sold to the consumer (i.e., licensed on a perpetual basis) and digital content supplied under a temporary licence on a subscription basis. Currently, most EU Member States do not have national consumer protection legislation specifically concerning sales or subscription of digital content to consumers (the issue tends to be covered by sales of goods or services rules).

European Council: General Approach

After the Commission issued the draft Digital Content Directive in December 2015, there was steady progress through 2016 and various committees debated or “took stock” of the proposal.

In March 2017, the European Data Protection Supervisor raised concerns with the proposal – namely that the provision of data as “counter-performance” was problematic (as discussed further below) and that there was a potential overlap in scope with the incoming General Data Protection Regulation.

However, the first major development on the Digital Content Directive took place in June 2017, when the European Council clarified the EU’s position on the proposal as follows:

  • Scope. The scope of the Digital Content Directive includes so-called “over-the-top” interpersonal communication services (such as voice and video calling, text messaging, email and social networking), bundle contracts and the processing of personal data. However, the Council recommended that embedded digital content (meaning, digital content or services that are pre-installed in goods such as smart fridges) should be excluded, leaving these issues to be governed by the rules on the sale of goods. Additionally, the Council explicitly stated that the proposal would not affect existing national and EU laws on copyright and related rights.
  • Non-conformity. The Digital Content Directive, as initially drafted, allowed subjective conformity criteria (i.e., criteria that are agreed in an individual contract) to prevail over objective conformity criteria (i.e., criteria that are stipulated by law). The Council rejected the idea that subjective conformity takes priority, requiring compliance with both subjective and objective criteria for conformity, unless the latter is expressly waived in advance by the consumer.
  • Remedies. The Council suggests that suppliers should have a second chance to supply the digital content or service in certain situations and proposes eliminating the strict hierarchy of remedies for lack of conformity that were initially proposed by the Commission.
  • Time limits. The Council proposes both that there should be a one-year time limit in relation to the reversed burden of proof on suppliers and also that any warranty or limitation period relating to the liability of the supplier must be at least two years under applicable domestic law. It stopped short of suggesting that warranty periods should be mandatorily harmonised across the EU.

European Parliament: Joint Report

The next key development took place in November 2017 when the two committees within the European Parliament that are responsible for progressing the proposed Digital Content Directive (being the Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) and Legal Affairs (JURI)) adopted a joint report on the proposal. A number of compromise amendments to the draft Digital Content Directive were prepared on the basis of the report, of which the main ones were:

  • Emphasis on data protection. The provisions on data protection in the draft Digital Content Directive should be prioritised over the contract law provisions.
  • Provision of data as counter-performance. The Digital Content Directive was drafted to cover digital content that is provided for non-monetary consideration, such as when a consumer provides his/her data to a supplier in exchange for access to content. The compromise amendment suggested in the report is to limit the provision of data as counter-performance to only personal data.
  • Latent defects. The draft provisions on a supplier’s liability for latent defects were removed, allowing Member States to retain or introduce domestic laws on liability for such defects.
  • Non-conformity. Consistent with the Council’s approach, the report suggests that all subjective and objective criteria for conformity must be met, unless the consumer expressly consents to waive compliance with such objective criteria in advance.
  • Time limits. Also in keeping with the Council’s approach, a time limit was introduced in connection with the proposed reversal of the burden of proof. However, the report suggests a time limit of two years (rather than the Council’s proposal of one year) and introduces an additional time limit relating to trader liability for defects of one or two years.
  • Embedded digital content. The scope of the draft Digital Content Directive was expanded to cover digital content embedded in tangible goods, in contrast to the amendment proposed by the Council.

Next Steps

The report was referred to the European Parliament, Council and Commission to commence informal trialogue talks, which are now expected to take place in the first part of 2018.

The Online Goods Directive

The draft Online Goods Directive will apply new rules to goods sold online or otherwise at a distance to EU consumers. Face-to-face sales are not covered, nor are contracts for the supply of services.

The key provisions of the Draft Online Goods Directive include a reversal of the burden of proof (i.e., the onus will be on the seller to prove that any defect didn’t exist at the time of sale) for two years; consumers won’t lose their rights if they don’t inform the seller of a defect within a certain period of time (as is currently the case in some Member States); if the seller is unable or fails to repair or replace a defective product, consumers will have the right to terminate the contract and be reimbursed also in cases of minor defects. See a more detailed summary here.

The draft Directive replaced the Commission’s previous attempt at harmonisation, which took the form of a proposed Regulation on a Common European Sales Law. The EU Parliament’s IMCO published its draft report on the Directive in November 2016, supporting the full harmonisation measures envisaged, but suggesting an expansion of the scope of the Directive to cover offline sales. This was driven by the desire for consistency – the idea that a common set of rules across Member States would be valuable for online, distance and face-to-face sales alike, rather than having a fragmented legislative framework that would vary depending on the method of sale.

After publishing its draft report, IMCO tabled over 200 amendments to the draft Online Goods Directive during a committee meeting in January 2017, and more in July 2017 (mostly relating to the expansion of the scope of the draft Directive to offline sales).

The Commission subsequently released an amended proposal on 31 October 2017. Although the main elements of the Online Goods Directive were unaltered, the amended proposal did provide for the following noteworthy changes:

  • Offline sales. In alignment with the suggestions in the draft report, the scope of the proposed Directive was expanded to cover offline sales. As a result, Directive 1999/44/EC on consumer sales and guarantees would be fully repealed (whereas before, it would have been only partially amended).
  • Second-hand goods. Member States will have the option of narrowing the scope of the Online Goods Directive to exclude contracts for the sale of second-hand goods sold at public auction.

Next Steps

The amended proposal has been resubmitted to the European Parliament and Council. We await a decision from the European Economic and Social Committee, after which the European Parliament will need to vote on the proposal at first reading.

What Should We Expect in 2018?

We will be keeping tabs on the Proposed Directives as they progress under the ordinary legislative procedure, although, because there is no time limit on the first reading stage, it is difficult to predict exactly when we will see movement.

It is also difficult to predict the impact of the Proposed Directives on the UK. The UK is, of course, due to leave the EU in March 2019, which is likely to be before the Proposed Directives are implemented. It will therefore be for the UK to decide the extent to which it wishes to reflect the provisions of the final Proposed Directives in national law, if at all. The commercial benefits of harmonisation with EU Member States will need to be weighed carefully against the drawbacks of overhauling consumer laws so soon after the changes introduced by the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015.

“My Google Home Mini was inadvertently spying on me 24/7 due to a hardware flaw,” wrote a tech blogger who purchased Google Inc.’s latest internet of things (IoT) device. Following the incident, a pact of consumer advocacy groups insisted the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) recall the Google smart speaker due to privacy concerns arising when the device recorded all audio without voice command prompts.

The CPSC is charged with protecting consumers from products that pose potential hazards. Traditionally, this has meant hazards that may cause physical injury or property damage. But as internet-connected household products continue to proliferate, issues like the “always-on” Google Home Mini raise an important question: Where does cybersecurity of consumer IoT devices fit within the current legal framework governing consumer products?

The Explosion of IoT

Forecasts predict that by 2020 IoT devices will account for 24 billion of the 34 billion devices connected to the internet. According to a recent Gemalto survey, “[a] hacker controlling IoT devices is the most common concern for consumers (65%), while six in ten (60%) worry about their data being stolen.”

The rapid growth of the IoT market and continued integration into daily life raises the question of which regulatory body or bodies, if any, should be responsible for consumer safety when it comes to cybersecurity for consumer IoT devices.

The Intersection of Consumer Product Safety, Privacy and Cybersecurity

The CPSC’s jurisdiction has traditionally been limited to physical injury and property damage. It is “charged with protecting the public from unreasonable risks of injury or death associated with the use of the thousands of types of consumer products under the agency’s jurisdiction.” Continue Reading Connected Devices Bring New Product Liability Challenges

In order to comply with a new German law requiring social media sites to take down hate speech, Twitter and Facebook removed anti-Islamic social media posts authored by a German far-right political party.

The Obama administration’s screening of social media accounts of aspiring immigrants from majority-Muslim nations yielded little actionable intelligence, but the Trump administration is building on the practice anyway.

Over the first half of 2017, Facebook received 32,716 requests from law enforcement for user data, with 57% of those requests containing non-disclosure orders that prohibited the social media giant from notifying the user.

In other Facebook news, the social media giant is now using its facial recognition technology to notify users whenever someone posts photos of them on the platform.

Last year Twitter dealt with a variety of missteps, including failing to include women on its tech and science follow list and an incident in which a rogue Twitter employee temporarily disabled President Trump’s Twitter account. Here’s a month-by-month look back at Twitter’s tumultuous 2017.

Many YouTube celebrities’ new-subscriber and monthly-view numbers aren’t climbing nearly as fast as they once did. Possible explanations include bugs resulting from changes in YouTube’s algorithms intended to reduce inappropriate content.

Stock exchanges are testing the use of blockchain technology for mutual-fund trading, proxy voting, issuing shares in private companies and facilitating shareholder communications.

Snapchat’s disappearing message feature doesn’t prevent law enforcement from identifying the authors of threats sent using the app.

Some people are using Instagram to connect with romantic prospects, creating portfolios intended to catch the attention of desirable dating candidates and gauging and expressing interest with likes, comments and Stories views.

 

 

 

.

 

Following a recent decision from the Sixth Circuit, anonymous bloggers and other Internet users who post third-party copyrighted material without authorization have cause for concern. They may be unable to preserve their anonymity.

In Signature Management Team, LLC v. John Doe, the majority of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit established a new “presumption in favor of unmasking anonymous defendants when judgment has been entered for a plaintiff” in a copyright infringement case. This unmasking presumption is intended to protect the openness of judicial proceedings. Whether to unmask the defendant in such circumstances requires an examination of factors such as the plaintiff’s and public’s interest in knowing the defendant’s identity. Continue Reading Anonymous Internet Users Beware: New Presumption in Favor of Unmasking the Losing Anonymous Defendant

Often derided as clickbait, listicles get a bum rap. They can be light on substantive content, sure, but sometimes that’s a good thing, especially for the busy readers of legal blogs, who would do well to treat themselves to some easily browsable reading material once in a while.

And so, at Socially Aware, we’ve made an annual tradition of curating a “List of Lists”—an inventory of the predictions, retrospectives and roundups that we think will be of most interest to our readership.

We’ll update this page throughout the month as additional pertinent content is published.

Happy 2018!

Technology & Social Media Law

The Top 10 Legal Tech Stories of 2017

UK Internet Law Developments to Look Out for in 2018

Social Media (General)

Most Popular Social Media Apps

7 Social Media Trends That Dominated 2017

8 Things We Learned About Social Media in 2017

7 Social Media Trends That Will Dominate 2018

10 Social-Media Trends to Prepare for in 2018

8 Top Social Media Trends to Look Out for in 2018

Social Media Trends to Watch For in 2018

Top 5 Social Media Trends to Put Into Practice in 2018

The Web 100

Continue Reading A List of Lists

Happy 2018 to our readers! It has become a Socially Aware tradition to start the New Year with some predictions from our editors and contributors. With smart contracts on the horizon, the Internet of Things and cryptocurrencies in the spotlight, and a number of closely watched lawsuits moving toward resolution, 2018 promises to be an exciting year in the world of emerging technology and Internet law.

Here are some of our predictions regarding tech-related legal developments over the next twelve months. As always, the views expressed are not to be attributed to Morrison & Foerster or its clients.

From John Delaney, Co-Founder and Co-Editor, Socially Aware, and Partner at Morrison & Foerster:
Regarding Web Scraping

Web scraping is an increasingly common activity among businesses (by one estimate, web-scraping bots account for as much as 46% of Internet traffic), and is helping to fuel the “Big Data” revolution. Despite the growing popularity of web scraping, courts have been generally unsympathetic to web scrapers. Last August, however, web scrapers finally received a huge victory, as the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California enjoined LinkedIn from blocking hiQ Labs’ scraping of publicly available user profiles from the LinkedIn website in the hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp. litigation. The case is now on appeal to the Ninth Circuit; although my sense is that the Ninth Circuit will reject the broad scope and rationale of the lower court’s ruling, if the Ninth Circuit nevertheless ultimately sides with hiQ Labs, the web scraper, the decision could be a game changer, bringing online scraping out of the shadows and perhaps spurring more aggressive uses of scraping tools and scraped data. On the other hand, if the Ninth Circuit reverses, we may see companies reexamining and perhaps curtailing their scraping initiatives. Either way, 2018 promises to bring greater clarity to this murky area of the law.

Regarding the Growing Challenges for Social Media Platforms

2017 was a tough year for social media platforms. After years of positive press, consumer goodwill and a generally “hands off” attitude from regulators, last year saw a growing backlash against social media platforms due to a number of reasons: the continued rise of trolling creating an ever-more toxic online environment; criticism of social media’s role in the dissemination of fake news; the growing concern over social media “filter bubbles” and “echo chambers”; the increasingly sophisticated tracking of online behavior; and worries about the potential societal impact of social media’s algorithm-driven effectiveness in attracting and keeping a grip on our attention. Expect to see in 2018 further efforts by social media companies to get out ahead of most if not all of these issues, in the hopes of discouraging or at least delaying greater governmental regulation.

Regarding the DMCA Safe Harbor for Hosting of User-Generated Content

The backlash against social media noted in my prior item may also be reflected to some extent in several 2017 court decisions regarding the DMCA safe harbor shielding website operators and other online service providers from copyright damages in connection with user-generated content (and perhaps in the CDA Section 230 case law discussed by Aaron Rubin below). After nearly two decades of court decisions generally taking an ever more expansive approach to this particular DMCA safe harbor, the pendulum begun to swing in the other direction in 2016, and this trend picked up steam in 2017, culminating in the Ninth Circuit’s Mavrix decision, which found an social media platform provider’s use of volunteer curators to review user posts to deprive the provider of DMCA safe harbor protection. Expect to see the pendulum continue to swing in favor of copyright owners in DMCA safe harbor decisions over the coming year.

Regarding Smart Contracts

Expect to see broader, mainstream adoption of “smart contracts,” especially in the B2B context—and perhaps litigation over smart contracts in 2019 . . . .

From Aaron Rubin, Co-Editor, Socially Aware, and Partner at Morrison & Foerster:
Regarding the CDA Section 230 Safe Harbor

We noted previously that 2016 was a particularly rough year for Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and the immunity that the statute provides website operators against liability arising from third-party or user-generated content. Now that 2017 is in the rear view mirror, Section 230 is still standing but its future remains imperiled. We have seen evidence of Section 230’s resiliency in recent cases where courts rejected plaintiffs’ creative attempts to find chinks in the immunity’s armor by arguing, for example, that websites lose immunity when they use data analytics to direct users to content, or when they fail to warn users of potential dangers, or when they share ad revenue with content developers. Nonetheless, it is clear that the knives are still out for Section 230, including in Congress, where a number of bills are under consideration that would significantly limit the safe harbor in the name of combatting sex trafficking. I predict that 2018 will only see these efforts to rein in Section 230 increase. Continue Reading 2018: Predictions From Socially Aware’s Editors and Contributors

In an effort to deter hate groups from tweeting sanitized versions of their messages, Twitter has began considering account holders’ off platform behavior when the platform evaluates whether potentially harmful tweets should be removed and account holders should be suspended or permanently banned.

In connection with Congressional efforts to deter online sex trafficking by narrowing the Communications Decency Act’s Section 230 safe harbor protection for website operators from claims arising from third-party ads and other content, a revised House bill would require proof of intent to facilitate prostitution, helping to address Internet industry concerns regarding the legislative initiative.

YouTube is making a concerted effort to remove disturbing videos featuring children in distress.

Concerned about the effect fake news could have on the democratic process, lawmakers in Ireland proposed a law that would make disseminating fake news on social media a crime.

A proposed cybersecurity law in Vietnam would require foreign tech companies like Google to establish offices and store data in that country. According to this op-ed, such a relatively late attempt to rein in Vietnam’s social media use would “most certainly trigger a popular backlash” and “seem like a retrograde move.”

A new report from clinical experts in the UK recommends that children younger than five-years-old should never be permitted to use digital technology without supervision.

Snapchat is rolling out a redesign that places all the messages and Stories from a user’s friends to the left side of the camera, and stories from professional social media stars and media outlets that the user follows to the right of it. But will people over the age of 30 still have no idea how to use the platform?

Instagram is testing a direct messaging app that would replace its current inbox. Called Direct, the app stands independent of that Instagram platform and, like Snapchat, opens to the user’s camera.

Artificial intelligence is allowing people to actually enjoy the moments they photograph by significantly cutting down the time it takes to share and catalog pictures.

There’s a browser extension that will hide all the potentially upsetting stories in your social media newsfeeds, but it’s not perfect. And maybe that’s a good thing.

Hmmm—in a tumultuous year, the ten most-liked posts on Instagram of 2017 all belong to Beyoncé, Cristiano Ronaldo or Selena Gomez.

In contrast, the most popular tweets of this year concern politics, tragedy and, well, chicken nuggets.

In the classic rock song “Light My Fire,” ‘60s icon and the Doors’ lead singer Jim Morrison sang, “The time to hesitate is through.”

If your company operates a website or blog that hosts user-generated content, and has yet to register an agent for receipt of copyright infringement notices under the U.S. Copyright Office’s new agent designation system, it’s time to light a fire. Failure to do so could significantly increase your company’s copyright liability exposure in connection with such hosted content.

Here’s what you need to know:

Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (DMCA) Section 512(c) safe harbor, website operators and other online service providers that comply with the eligibility requirements are shielded from copyright damages in connection with their hosting of infringing content uploaded by service users.

This powerful safe harbor has played a major role in the success of Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and other U.S. social media and Internet sites. But it also protects brands that host on their websites text, photos and videos uploaded by their customers.

An online service provider seeking Section 512(c) safe harbor protection must designate with the U.S. Copyright Office an agent to receive notifications of infringement from copyright owners. A year ago, the U.S. Copyright Office rolled out a new online system for the designation of agents, replacing a paper-based system that had been in place for nearly 18 years; the Copyright Office, however, provided a year-long grace period for online service providers who had registered agents under the old system to register those agents under the new system.

This grace period is coming to a close. Online service providers with an agent registered through the old system must register that agent through the new system by December 31, 2017, in order to maintain a valid agent designation.

This point is so important that we’re going to repeat it in bold italics:

Online service providers with an agent registered through the old system must register that agent through the new system by December 31, 2017, in order to maintain a valid agent designation.

Failure to register under the new system by the end of this year could result, beginning on January 1, 2018, in an online service provider losing the benefits of the Section 512(c) safe harbor in connection with its hosting of user-generated content.

We know it’s a busy time of year. We know that copyright issues are often not top-of-mind in the last few weeks of the year. We know that you are preparing for the holidays. But if your company hosts user-generated content and has yet to register its DMCA agent under the new agent designation system, you’ll want to make sure that this task gets moved to the top of the company’s “Things to Do Before Year’s End” list.

There’s a lot more to know about the new system. For example, the Copyright Office’s new approach expands the options available to online service providers in designating an agent. Under the old system, service providers were required to name a natural person or a specific position or title. The new regulations provide that a designated agent may be an individual, a specific position or title held by an individual, a specific department within the service provider’s organization or within a third-party entity or a third-party entity generally.

For purposes of designating an agent under the new system, related or affiliated service providers that are separate legal entities (e.g., corporate parents and subsidiaries) are considered separate service providers and each will need to have its own separate designation.

Further, the cost of designation under the new system is cheaper than under the old system. Each paper form designation under the old system would have cost a service provider $105, not including additional fees to list non-legal names used by the service provider; under the new online system, the designation fee is $6 with no additional fee to register alternative names (i.e., names that the public would be likely to use to search for the service provider’s designated agent in the Copyright Office’s online directory of designated agents).

Also, under the new system, online service providers will need to renew their agent designations every three years in order to maintain safe harbor protection in connection with their hosting of user-generated content. There was no renewal requirement under the old system. Although the new system will generate reminder notices as renewal deadlines approach, companies will want to ensure that these deadlines are noted on their own calendaring systems.

The Copyright Office has created a series of tutorials to assist online service providers in registering an agent under the new system. The tutorials titled “Designating an Agent for a Service Provider” and “Creating a DMCA Designated Agent Registration Account” provide step-by-step instructions on how to designate an agent through the new online system.

For more information regarding the new system (including the rationale behind the new system), check out our blog post on the subject from December 2016.

Here are our key takeaways regarding registration under the new system:

  • If your company hosts, stores or even links to user-generated content, it should ensure that it has registered an agent with the Copyright Office under the new system. If it hasn’t, it should do so by December 31, 2017.
  • The fact that your company may have already registered its DMCA agent with the Copyright Office under the old paper-based system will be irrelevant for purposes of maintaining DMCA safe harbor protection in 2018 and onward.
  • Under the new system, a company cannot make a single designation covering all of its affiliates; rather, each corporate entity that hosts user-generated content will need to do its own designation.
  • After registering under the new system, online service providers will need to ensure that they observe the “every three years” deadlines for renewing their registrations. The Copyright Office states that the new system will automatically send email reminders to the designated primary contract and, if provided, secondary contact, service provider and designated agent at 90 days, 60 days, 30 days and one week prior to the deadline for renewal; but companies will want to make sure that renewal deadlines are recorded on their internal calendaring systems.

So, if your company hasn’t done so already, it needs to get its DMCA agent registered under the new agent designation system. If it doesn’t do so, you may be singing a different song associated with Jim Morrison and the Doors: “When the music’s over, turn out the lights . . . .”

Well, as our readers know, we are modest people here at Socially Aware, and we don’t like tooting our own horn, but we do feel compelled to note that Socially Aware has been named one of the 50 best law blogs by the ABA Journal, the American Bar Association’s flagship publication!

To determine which blogs represent the best of law-related online media, the ABA Journal’s staff considered nominations by readers who wrote the publication “to share what they considered the most compelling corners of the web.” In a change from years past, judges from outside the publication also nominated blogs for consideration and helped to make the final determinations. You can find the names of those esteemed judges at the bottom of the page at this link.

The ABA Journal has annually compiled a year-end list of exemplary legal web content—which until this year was called the Annual Blawg 100—since 2007. Socially Aware was delighted to be included on that list in 2015 and 2016.

This year, to make room among the honorees for 25 law podcasts and 25 law-related Twitter accounts, the ABA Journal renamed the list the Web 100 and whittled down the number of blogs it recognized to 50. We’re thrilled to have made the cut, and to be included on a list of so many excellent blogs.

We remain as passionate about social media and technology law as the day we launched Socially Aware. And we’re thankful for the Socially Aware community—all the readers, contributors and colleagues who have been so important to the blog’s success.

We look forward in the coming year to continuing to share our thoughts and insights—and to hearing your thoughts and insights—on legal developments, business trends and emerging best practices relating to social media, mobile apps and other emerging technologies!