Practice Guide

UCLA's IP Journal of Law and Technology has dedicated large amounts of resources in this, its 9th year of existence, to new and old projects. We are continuing to develop great law review articles related to IP and technology law, and we are also providing a valuable career forum for UCLA students and IP firms alike. Plus, JOLT is spearheading a number of projects this year including a writing competition for law school students across the nation and a UCLA Law IP Summer Grant for non-paid IP-related work.

In addition, one of our biggest goals for the upcoming year is to establish an online resource for practicing attorneys. We are looking for articles written by practicing attorneys with an eye towards advice, discussion, and review of the old, the new, and the unresolved issues in the legal field today, as opposed to the more academic issues addressed in most law reviews.

JOLT is making a strong push to make this “Practice Guide” webpage the premier portal to practical guidance in the ever-changing world of IP and technology law; a place to allow discussion and comment on these issues by the people in the trenches that simultaneously know the most, and need the most guidance, about them. You.

Therefore, we are asking for submissions to publish IP and Tech related notes and comments online at lawtechjournal.com/practiceguide. Please email PracticeGuide AT lawtechjournal.com (replace "AT" with "@") with submissions, questions, and comments.

Thank you for taking this opportunity to contribute to the field of intellectual property and technology law. With your help, we can create a valuable resource for practicing attorneys.

"The Uncertain State Of Copyright Infringement Liability For Internet Service Providers"
In a decision that could effect a significant change in the law of direct copyright infringement, the Fourth Circuit refused to hold an Internet service provider liable for direct copyright infringement, even though the defendant participated in the infringements committed by its customers. Until this decision – CoStar Group, Inc. v. LoopNet, Inc.1 – courts had permitted ISPs to escape liability for direct infringement when they acted as purely “passive” conduits of Internet traffic. In LoopNet, however, a 2 to 1 majority held that LoopNet was not directly liable for infringing CoStar’s rights in its copyrighted photographs even though LoopNet’s employees actually reviewed infringing photographs provided by its customers, then decided whether to move them into a file folder for placement on LoopNet’s website. If followed by other courts, the holding in LoopNet would bring an end to what was a clear delineation between Internet firms that are mere conduits of information and those that play a greater role in the selection of information distributed online.
Click here for online article.