Net News

Paris Hilton Sues Over Internet Sex Tape

Reality TV star Paris Hilton recently sued a Panama-based Internet company for $30 million, claiming that it illegally distributed a now-infamous tape of her having sex with an ex-boyfriend.

Hilton, who describes herself in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit as a model and actress, sued Kahatani Ltd. for violation of privacy, illegal business practices and infliction of emotional distress.

The 22-year-old socialite ' best known as star of the Fox reality TV show “The Simple Life” ' seeks $15 million in actual damages and another $15 million in punitive damages.

Hilton, whose grandfather founded the Hilton hotel chain, asserts in the lawsuit that the grainy, black-and-white videotape depicts her and then-boyfriend Rick Solomon in “intimate relations” and was not meant for others to see.

“Hilton intended the videotape only for personal use and never intended or consented that it be shown to anyone else or distributed to the public,” the lawsuit says.

Solomon, a video entrepreneur, sued Hilton and her family in November, claiming that they slandered him by suggesting that he took advantage her.

Just prior to press time, a full-length, clear tape has surfaced and is being offered for sale on the Internet. It's a safe bet that further legal action will be taken against those selling that video.

U.S. senators opposed to a bill to ban Internet access taxes recently unveiled rival legislation for a temporary tax moratorium that would not threaten state and local revenues.

“The other option is the wrong policy and it couldn't come at a worse time,” Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican, told a news briefing where he and Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware announced plans to introduce their bill.

Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California are co-sponsors of the bill, which bans new taxes on Internet access, including via Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL), for 2 years.

The senators say a broad definition of “Internet access” in the bill they oppose would prevent state and local governments from collecting sales taxes on telecommunications services as basic as telephone calls, because such traditional services are increasingly migrating to the Internet.

The bill imposing a permanent ban, sponsored by Virginia Sen. George Allen (R), and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden (D), includes taxes on DSL access under its prohibition.

It also eliminates access taxes that were in place in some states before 1998 and which were allowed to stand under the previous moratorium law.

The new alternative measure would retain the “grandfather” clause allowing states that are already taxing DSL and other modes of Internet access to continue doing so.

Alexander and Carper called the Allen-Wyden-sponsored bill a tax cut for telecommunications companies at huge cost to already cash-strapped state and local governments, which would lose billions of dollars in tax revenues.

Despite recovery in the national economy, state and local government revenues remain strained and demand for safety net services remains high, straining budgets.

In California, state and local governments would lose $836 million annually, according to a study by Ernst & Young cited by the senators. Florida would lose $1.06 billion, Texas $1.2 billion and Tennessee would lose $361 million.

Both the permanent and temporary ban legislations are designed to replace a 1998 moratorium that kept state and local governments from imposing taxes on the monthly fees Internet providers such as EarthLink, Inc. charge customers.

The moratorium expired on Nov. 1, 2003.

In Ellison v. Robertson, et al., No. 02-55797 (9th Cir., Feb. 10, 2004), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has called into question the viability of the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. '512, in a closely-watched case involving vicarious and contributory copyright infringement.

Harlan Ellison is the author of numerous science fiction novels and short stories, and he owns valid copyrights to those works. In the spring of 2000, Stephen Robertson electronically scanned and copied a number of Ellison's fictional works to convert them to digital files. Robertson subsequently uploaded the files onto the USENET newsgroup “alt.binaries.e-book.” The USENET newsgroup at issue was used primarily to exchange unauthorized digital copies of works by famous authors, including Ellison.

Upset that his copyrighted materials were available for universal distribution via USENET, Ellison brought claims for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement against America Online (AOL), which provides its subscribers access to the USENET newsgroup.

AOL moved for summary judgment in the district court. It asserted defenses to Ellison's infringement claims and alternatively argued that it qualified for one of the four safe harbor limitations of liability under the DMCA. Ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that AOL was not liable for vicarious infringement and protected under the safe harbor provision of 17 U.S.C. 512(a).

Ellison subsequently appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's holdings as to vicarious and contributory infringement, but reversed the district court's application of the safe harbor limitation from liability. The crux of the Ninth Circuit's concern centered on whether AOL met the pre-qualifying standards of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions contained in 17 U.S.C. 512(i), requiring Internet service providers to afford adequate channels to report repeating infringers.

“We hold that the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that AOL satisfied the requirements of '512(i). There is at least a triable issue of material fact regarding AOL's eligibility for the safe harbor limitations of liability in this case,” the court wrote. “There is ample evidence in the record that suggests that AOL did not have an effective notification procedure in place at the time the alleged infringing activities were taking place. Although AOL did notify the Copyright Office of its correct e-mail address before Ellison's attorney attempted to contact AOL and did post its correct e-mail address on the AOL Web site with a brief summary of its policy as to repeat infringers, AOL also: 1) changed the e-mail address to which infringement notifications were supposed to have been sent; and 2) failed to provide for forwarding of messages sent to the old address or notification that the e-mail address was inactive …. AOL should have closed the old e-mail account or forwarded the e-mails sent to the old account to the new one. Instead, AOL allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded; that fact is sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that AOL had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers.”

Paris Hilton Sues Over Internet Sex Tape

Reality TV star Paris Hilton recently sued a Panama-based Internet company for $30 million, claiming that it illegally distributed a now-infamous tape of her having sex with an ex-boyfriend.

Hilton, who describes herself in the Los Angeles Superior Court lawsuit as a model and actress, sued Kahatani Ltd. for violation of privacy, illegal business practices and infliction of emotional distress.

The 22-year-old socialite ' best known as star of the Fox reality TV show “The Simple Life” ' seeks $15 million in actual damages and another $15 million in punitive damages.

Hilton, whose grandfather founded the Hilton hotel chain, asserts in the lawsuit that the grainy, black-and-white videotape depicts her and then-boyfriend Rick Solomon in “intimate relations” and was not meant for others to see.

“Hilton intended the videotape only for personal use and never intended or consented that it be shown to anyone else or distributed to the public,” the lawsuit says.

Solomon, a video entrepreneur, sued Hilton and her family in November, claiming that they slandered him by suggesting that he took advantage her.

Just prior to press time, a full-length, clear tape has surfaced and is being offered for sale on the Internet. It's a safe bet that further legal action will be taken against those selling that video.

U.S. senators opposed to a bill to ban Internet access taxes recently unveiled rival legislation for a temporary tax moratorium that would not threaten state and local revenues.

“The other option is the wrong policy and it couldn't come at a worse time,” Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Republican, told a news briefing where he and Democratic Sen. Tom Carper of Delaware announced plans to introduce their bill.

Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas and Democratic Sen. Diane Feinstein of California are co-sponsors of the bill, which bans new taxes on Internet access, including via Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL), for 2 years.

The senators say a broad definition of “Internet access” in the bill they oppose would prevent state and local governments from collecting sales taxes on telecommunications services as basic as telephone calls, because such traditional services are increasingly migrating to the Internet.

The bill imposing a permanent ban, sponsored by Virginia Sen. George Allen (R), and Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden (D), includes taxes on DSL access under its prohibition.

It also eliminates access taxes that were in place in some states before 1998 and which were allowed to stand under the previous moratorium law.

The new alternative measure would retain the “grandfather” clause allowing states that are already taxing DSL and other modes of Internet access to continue doing so.

Alexander and Carper called the Allen-Wyden-sponsored bill a tax cut for telecommunications companies at huge cost to already cash-strapped state and local governments, which would lose billions of dollars in tax revenues.

Despite recovery in the national economy, state and local government revenues remain strained and demand for safety net services remains high, straining budgets.

In California, state and local governments would lose $836 million annually, according to a study by Ernst & Young cited by the senators. Florida would lose $1.06 billion, Texas $1.2 billion and Tennessee would lose $361 million.

Both the permanent and temporary ban legislations are designed to replace a 1998 moratorium that kept state and local governments from imposing taxes on the monthly fees Internet providers such as EarthLink, Inc. charge customers.

The moratorium expired on Nov. 1, 2003.

In Ellison v. Robertson, et al., No. 02-55797 (9th Cir., Feb. 10, 2004), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has called into question the viability of the safe harbor provision of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), 17 U.S.C. '512, in a closely-watched case involving vicarious and contributory copyright infringement.

Harlan Ellison is the author of numerous science fiction novels and short stories, and he owns valid copyrights to those works. In the spring of 2000, Stephen Robertson electronically scanned and copied a number of Ellison's fictional works to convert them to digital files. Robertson subsequently uploaded the files onto the USENET newsgroup “alt.binaries.e-book.” The USENET newsgroup at issue was used primarily to exchange unauthorized digital copies of works by famous authors, including Ellison.

Upset that his copyrighted materials were available for universal distribution via USENET, Ellison brought claims for vicarious and contributory copyright infringement against America Online (AOL), which provides its subscribers access to the USENET newsgroup.

AOL moved for summary judgment in the district court. It asserted defenses to Ellison's infringement claims and alternatively argued that it qualified for one of the four safe harbor limitations of liability under the DMCA. Ruling on a motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that AOL was not liable for vicarious infringement and protected under the safe harbor provision of 17 U.S.C. 512(a).

Ellison subsequently appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's holdings as to vicarious and contributory infringement, but reversed the district court's application of the safe harbor limitation from liability. The crux of the Ninth Circuit's concern centered on whether AOL met the pre-qualifying standards of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions contained in 17 U.S.C. 512(i), requiring Internet service providers to afford adequate channels to report repeating infringers.

“We hold that the district court erred in concluding on summary judgment that AOL satisfied the requirements of '512(i). There is at least a triable issue of material fact regarding AOL's eligibility for the safe harbor limitations of liability in this case,” the court wrote. “There is ample evidence in the record that suggests that AOL did not have an effective notification procedure in place at the time the alleged infringing activities were taking place. Although AOL did notify the Copyright Office of its correct e-mail address before Ellison's attorney attempted to contact AOL and did post its correct e-mail address on the AOL Web site with a brief summary of its policy as to repeat infringers, AOL also: 1) changed the e-mail address to which infringement notifications were supposed to have been sent; and 2) failed to provide for forwarding of messages sent to the old address or notification that the e-mail address was inactive …. AOL should have closed the old e-mail account or forwarded the e-mails sent to the old account to the new one. Instead, AOL allowed notices of potential copyright infringement to fall into a vacuum and to go unheeded; that fact is sufficient for a reasonable jury to conclude that AOL had not reasonably implemented its policy against repeat infringers.”