Your Online Life After Death

Take a second and think about all your online accounts. If you include email accounts, banks, dating sites, social networking, sky miles accounts, credit cards, memberships, rewards cards, etc, there are simply too many accounts to keep track of. Tech Radar reported that people have an average of twenty-six to forty online accounts. Now think about what would happen to those accounts if something happened to you.

This week Google unveiled its Inactive Account Manager, a new feature which allows its members to indicate what they would like to happen to their accounts after a period of inactivity. Users can set their online data to self-destruct or assign their data to trusted loved ones who will be contacted after the period of inactivity with access to the account. This new feature has been likened to an online will and its about time Google address this issue of what happens to our online lives after death.


Our online lives often continue on after death because of the issues of access. Imagine how daunting it is be for someone to track down all your online accounts and profiles without personal knowledge of where you have created them. Obviously, for accounts that are shared with your significant other, access is not an issue but friends and families face a huge problem for personal accounts, especially for peripheral membership. Loved ones are often left to manage or close accounts on their own without much direction of how many and where they are.

One woman resorted to seeking help from ABC News to get her late husbands profile removed from Facebook. Facebook refused to provide her access to the account and would only agree to "memorialize" the account; in effect leaving it up but making it private to friends only. Even after sending Facebook her husband's death, birth, and marriage certificates, and even a portion of his will to prove he had died, only after ABC's involvement was his profile actually deleted.

Facebook's policy hasn't changed with the procedures for members who have died still being fairly complicated. It still opts to memorialize profiles of its deceased members, it will not provide password information, but now with the proper documentation Facebook will delete an account.


States are beginning to slowly catch up; in February, Virginia's legislature joined five other states by passing a law that gave parents of deceased minors access to their social media accounts.

HOW TO MANAGE YOUR ONLINE PROFILE AFTER DEATH
Preparing for this if the best solution. Tell your loved ones whether you want your profiled deleted and create a creating an inventory of online accounts and passwords for loved ones to use to make accessing your accounts easy. There are many online services that provide a solution for this problem. While it may be easy to sign up, register or join as a member on many websites, the challenge comes when loved ones want to delete those accounts. Make it as easy as possible by treating your online life as part of the estate planning process. Take a look at this great site that explores more of these issues: http://www.digitalpassing.com/about/

Social Media Use by Attorneys and Law Firms

            The internet has fundamentally changed the way we interact on a daily basis. Though relatively new, social media has become a tool many businesses and individuals use in their professional lives. Platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, vary but all have a common purpose of facilitating interactions between users. The legal community has struggled with how to address the ethical concerns associated with the use of social media sometimes debating whether social media should be used within its profession at all.[1] 

            Utah’s Ethics Advisory Committee recently issued an unofficial advisory opinion to provide judges with guidance in their use of Social Media. The opinion provides some help to attorneys as well. Attorneys and judges should be cautious but they should not immediately shy away from using social media as part of their practice.While social media has been associated with a younger generation, it has expanded to include people of all ages and professions, including attorneys and judges[2]. 
           The nature of how one may “use” social media varies extensively. Many individuals in the legal community, lawyers and judges alike, are not members of any social media platform. Others may have an account or membership on multiple websites. For those who do have social media accounts, the level of individual participation on social media can vary vastly. Use on social media can range from those who have an account per se but are inactive users rarely visit the social media website; while active users may visit and participate regularly online.[3] “Active observers” may regularly visit their social media account but never actually engaging others on it; rather they use it as a tool to monitor or keep updated on the activity of others.[4] Moreover, a social media account may also serve different purposes for different individuals. Some users may limit their interactions to close family and friends as a way to keep in touch, while others use social media as a networking and business development tool to meet new people and potential clients.

There is nothing inherently inappropriate about social media use, but how you use it. Attorneys conduct is no more acceptable if it takes place online, it is just another form of technology. Social media use is not for everyone, but a basic understanding will allow you  to know why it is or is not useful for your practice. It’s important to identify your goals and understand the fundamental aspects social media; only after learning the tool, can it become useful.

---

[1] Steven Seidenberg, Seduced, A.B.A. J., Feb 1, 2011, at 48 available at http://www.abajournal.com/magazine/article/seduced_for_lawyers_the_appeal_of_social_media_is_obvious_dangerous/.

[2] Seidenberg, supra note 1.

[3] See generally, Mary Madden, Older Adults and Social Media, Pew Internet & American Life Project (2010) available at http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Older-Adults-and-Social-Media.aspx.

[4] See e.g. Stephanie Francis Ward, Justice Breyer’s on Twitter & Facebook, But Don’t Count on Him Friending You, A.B.A. J. (Apr 14, 2011) available at http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/breyer_on_facebook_but_dont_count_on_him_friending_you/ (explaining that he has an account of Facebook and Twitter); James Vicini, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Breyer on Twitter, Reuters (April 14, 2011) available at http://blogs.reuters.com/talesfromthetrail/2011/04/14/u-s-supreme-court-justice-breyer-on-twitter/ (explaining that he has a twitter account but he does not actively engage with the public on it and uses it as an “active observer).

YouTube v Viacom: Round 2

YouTube and Viacom are in for a legal battle. I haven't read much yet but below I've listed the conclusions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which sent the case back to disctrict court. The district court was instructed to re-consider issues surrounding whether YouTube was liable for infringement when its users uploaded copyrighted video's and songs online. Google's, who owns YouTube, saw a slight fall in stock prices after the news spread. For those legal nerds out there here's the Second Circuit Courts decision.

Here are some other articles covering the reversal:
Reuters: Viacom wins reversal in landmark YouTube case
The Wall Street Journal: Viacom Advances in YouTube Suit
The New York Times: Judge Sides With Google in Viacom Video Suit

If you need to catch up on whats been going on here is a PBS story from 2010 which covered the original decisions and the implication:  What the Viacom vs. YouTube Verdict Means for Copyright Law

In an interesting side note, YouTube and Paramount did come to an agreement recently where YouTube will provide movies for rent online for $5. Maybe its the fact that I can get a movie at Redbox for $1 and pay a bit more for Netflix which gives me unlimited movies but, $5 seems a bit steep to me. Then again, if the content is more along the lines of the recent blockbusters, the price may fit the bill.

I look forward to the day where we can see movies on opening weekend from the comfort of our own homes, though its not likely to happen since that would effectively cut a studios profits down dramatically.

Here are the courts CONCLUSIONS:


To summarize, we hold that:

(1)  The District Court correctly held that 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(A) requires knowledge or
awareness of facts or circumstances that indicate specific and identifiable instances of
infringement;

(2)  However, the June 23, 2010 order granting summary judgment to YouTube is VACATED because a reasonable jury could conclude that YouTube had knowledge or awareness under § 512(c)(1)(A) at least with respect to a handful of specific clips; the cause is  REMANDED for the District Court to determine whether YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific instances of infringement corresponding to the clips-in-suit;

(3)  The willful blindness doctrine may be applied, in appropriate circumstances, to demonstrate knowledge or awareness of specific instances of infringement under § 512(c)(1)(A); the cause is  REMANDED for the District Court to consider the application of the willful blindness doctrine in the first instance;

(4)  The District Court erred by requiring “item-specific” knowledge of infringement in its interpretation of the “right and ability to control” infringing activity under 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1)(B), and the judgment is REVERSED insofar as it rests on that erroneous construction of the statute; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding by the District Court on the issues of control and financial benefit;

(5) The District Court correctly held that  three of the challenged YouTube software functions—replication, playback, and the related videos feature—occur “by reason of the storage at the direction of a user” within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. § 512(c)(1), and 35 the judgment is AFFIRMED insofar as it so held; the cause is REMANDED for further fact-finding regarding a fourth software function, involving the syndication of
YouTube videos to third parties.

 On remand, the District Court shall allow the parties to brief the following issues, with a view to permitting renewed motions for summary judgment as soon as practicable:

(A) Whether, on the current record, YouTube had knowledge or awareness of any specific  infringements (including any clips-in-suit not expressly noted in this opinion);

(B) Whether, on the current record, YouTube willfully blinded itself to specific infringements;

(C) Whether YouTube had the “right and ability to control” infringing activity within the meaning of § 512(c)(1)(B); and

(D) Whether any clips-in-suit were syndicated to a third party and, if so, whether such syndication occurred “by reason of the storage at the direction of the user” within the meaning of § 512(c)(1), so that YouTube may claim the protection of the § 512(c) safe harbor.