Clinical and Pro Bono Programs

Providing clinical and pro bono opportunities to Harvard Law School students

Tag: Christopher Bavitz

The Law and the Digital World

Via Harvard Law Today

By: Erick Trickey

Credit: Martha Stewart


When Sara Cable was a Harvard undergraduate, she took Harvard Law School Professor Morton Horwitz’s class about the public-private distinction in the law. Now the director of data privacy and security for Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, Cable says figuring out where that line falls is something she thinks about every single day.

Cable returned to campus recently to talk about those issues again. She represented Healey’s office at the AGTech Forum symposium on cybersecurity and privacy, hosted by Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society. While there, she thought anew about Horwitz’s class. “Who would have thought I’d be dealing with those issues?” she says. “There was something delightfully circular about that.”

Cable was among officials from 23 offices of state attorneys general who met at HLS on February 28 and March 1 to discuss technology-driven challenges to privacy and data security that vex state regulators and threaten consumers. Twice a year, since fall 2017, the AGTech Forum series has brought together representatives from state AG offices across the country to network and learn from academics and other experts about the privacy and other concerns associated with emerging technologies. The goal is to make state attorneys general more effective in advocating for the public interest.

“That kind of education is incredibly useful,” says Cable. In some cases, the only other way for attorneys general to get similar insight about new technology is “using our investigative tools to ask the company directly,” says Cable. That adversarial process, she adds, can color the information the states get.

The AGTech Forum is the brainchild of Lecturer on Law Jim Tierney, who served as Maine’s attorney general from 1980 to 1990 and directs the Attorney General Clinic at HLS. Outside certain limited sectors, state law—not federal law—tends to govern privacy in the United States. Yet state attorneys general do not always have cutting-edge knowledge about technology’s effects on privacy, Tierney says.

“Attorneys general did not have access to the very top experts, who could see not only the tech issues now, but the tech issues of the future,” says Tierney, who often consults with attorneys general as director of the educational website “They’ve had to make tough prosecutorial decisions about tech-related matters, [without] access to those experts.”

So, Tierney pitched Berkman Klein Center Directors and Professors Chris Bavitz and Jonathan Zittrain ’95 on the idea of hosting tech conferences for attorneys general. The AGTech Forum fits neatly with Berkman Klein’s long-term goals, says Bavitz, who is managing director of HLS’s Cyberlaw Clinic. “We at Berkman like doing research but also having impact,” says Bavitz. “The idea of talking to people who are on the front lines of doing the work seemed very appealing.”

So far, 36 state attorneys general have sent lawyers to at least one of the four forums, thanks in part to grants and foundation support that help to cover travel. The gatherings give state attorneys a place to learn and connect without being lobbied by the very companies that could become enforcement targets. “We have really tried our best to make sure this is not tainted by commercial interests on any side,” says Bavitz.

Continue reading.

Tech Giants, Profs Push Justices To Take Google-Oracle Case

Via Law360 

Source: Pexels

By: Bill Donahue

Major technology companies, software developers, legal scholars and others have filed a flood of amicus briefs urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Google‘s appeal in the company’s yearslong copyright battle with Oracle over use of copyrighted code in Android smartphones.

In a dozen briefs filed Friday and Monday, several outside groups and experts pressed the justices to grant certiorari in the closely watched case in which Oracle sued Google for using Java software code when it built the Android operating system.

The briefs came in support of Google, which appealed to the high court last month after a lower court twice sided with Oracle. If the high court refuses to hear the case, Google could be on the hook for a potential 10-figure damages total.

According to a brief filed Monday by the Computer and Communications Industry Association — a lobbying group that represents AmazonMicrosoftT-Mobile and Google itself — the rulings for Oracle are out of sync with how the rest of the world treats software copyrights.

“Taken together, these two decisions represent a major setback to competition and innovation in the software industry,” the group wrote. “These decisions run directly contrary to legal norms promoting competition in the software industry that have been adopted by more than 40 of our trading partners.”

The non-profit Developers Alliance, meanwhile, told the justices that rulings in favor of Oracle had left developers “confused about whether and where established practices constitute copyright infringement.”

“Specifically, developers now question their ability to freely create interoperable software across projects and platforms, as has been common practice,” wrote the Alliance, an advocacy group that represents 75,000 software developers. “The inevitable result of this uncertainty will be reduced innovation, higher industry costs, and increased litigation.”

In another brief, a group of eight law professors from Harvard University, New York Universityand other schools told the justices the case would provide an “ideal vehicle” for the court’s first ruling in more than 25 years on copyright’s fair use doctrine.

“The lower courts have reached a doctrinal fork, and this court needs to resolve it,” the group wrote of fair use case law.

An additional 65 intellectual property professors wrote a separate brief that said the lower court rulings had “deepened splits in circuit court interpretations of several major copyright doctrines as applied to computer programs.”

David Nimmer, a professor at UCLA School of Law and the author of an influential treatise on copyright law, filed his own brief with another scholar that said the case could “upend nearly three decades of sound, well-settled, and critically important decisions” on software copyrights.

Oracle sued Google in 2010, claiming it lifted key aspects from so-called application programming interfaces, or APIs — chunks of prewritten computing instructions Oracle created to help programmers more easily write in the Java programming language — and used them in Android, the top smartphone operating system in the world.

Google originally argued that the pieces it used from the API were not copyrightable, but the Federal Circuit rejected that in 2014. Google then argued that its use of the code was protected by copyright’s fair use doctrine, but the appeals court again rejected that last year.

Last month, Google took both of those rulings to the Supreme Court, warning the justices that the decisions would drastically alter how copyright treats the “essential building blocks of software development.”

“Google has never disputed that some forms of computer code are entitled to copyright protection,” the company wrote. “But the Federal Circuit’s widely criticized opinions … go much further, throwing a devastating one-two punch at the software industry.”

A response brief from Oracle is due on March 27. That brief will likely be followed by amicus briefs that support Oracle.

Separate amicus briefs were also filed on Friday and Monday by the Electronic Frontier FoundationPublic Knowledge; a group of 78 computer scientists; Red Hat Inc., an open-source software firm; a group of “software innovators, startups, and investors”; Python Software Foundation; and the American Antitrust Institute.

CCIA is represented in-house by Matt Schruers and Ali Sternburg, and by Jonathan Band of Jonathan Band PLLC.

The Developers Alliance is represented in-house by Bruce Gustafson, and by James H. Hulme and Nadia A. Patel of Arent Fox LLP.

The eight law professors are represented by Christopher T. Bavitz of Harvard Law School.

The 65 IP professors are represented by Pamela Samuelson and Catherine Crump of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law.

Nimmer and co-author Peter S. Menell are representing themselves.

Google is represented by Thomas C. Goldstein of Goldstein & Russell PC, Kannon K. Shanmugam of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Charles L. McCloud and Meng Jia Yang of Williams & Connolly LLP, Robert A. Van Nest, Christa M. Anderson, Eugene M. Paige and Reid P. Mullen of Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP, Bruce W. Baber and Marisa C. Maleck of King & Spalding LLP, and Michael S. Kwun of Kwun Bhansali Lazarus LLP.

Oracle is represented in-house by Dorian Daley, Deborah K. Miller, Matthew M. Sarboraria and Ruchika Agrawal, and by Joshua Rosenkranz, Annette L. Hurst, Peter A. Bicks, Lisa T. Simpson, Andrew D. Silverman, Matthew L. Bush, Mark S. Davies, Kelsi Brown Corkran, Melanie L. Bostwick and Jeremy Peterman of Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, and Dale M. Cendali and Joshua L. Simmons of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Google LLC v. Oracle America Inc., case number 18-956, before the Supreme Court of the United States.

Evaluating the Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Human Rights

Via Harvard Law Today

By: Carolyn Schmitt

From using artificial intelligence (AI) to determine credit scores to using AI to determine whether a defendant or criminal may offend again, AI-based tools are increasingly being used by people and organizations in positions of authority to make important, often life-altering decisions. But how do these instances impact human rights, such as the right to equality before the law, and the right to an education?

A new report from the Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society (BKC) addresses this issue and weighs the positive and negative impacts of AI on human rights through six “use cases” of algorithmic decision-making systems, including criminal justice risk assessments and credit scores. Whereas many other reports and studies have focused on ethical issues of AI, the BKC report is one of the first efforts to analyze the impacts of AI through a human rights lens, and proposes a new framework for thinking about the impact of AI on human rights. The report was funded, in part, by the Digital Inclusion Lab at Global Affairs Canada.

“One of the things I liked a lot about this project and about a lot of the work we’re doing [in the Algorithms and Justice track of the Ethics and Governance of AI Initiative] is that it’s extremely current and tangible. There are a lot of far-off science fiction scenarios that we’re trying to think about, but there’s also stuff happening right now,” says Professor Christopher Bavitz, the WilmerHale Clinical Professor of Law, Managing Director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at BKC, and senior author on the report. Bavitz also leads the Algorithms and Justice track of the BKC project on the Ethics and Governance of AI Initiative, which developed this report.

Read the full article here.

Cyberlaw Clinic Supports Supreme Court Amicus Effort on Patent Damages

Via Cyberlaw Clinic

The Clinic was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with Professor Bernard Chao of the University of Denver Sturm College of Law on an amicus brief that Professor Chao filed in the United States Supreme Court this week.  The brief, submitted on behalf of eighteen intellectual property law professors, supports petitioners’ request that the Supreme Court review a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  That decision – Mentor Graphics v. Eve-USA, (Fed. Cir. March 16, 2017) – awarded patent damages against petitioners.  But, as amici argue in the brief, the Federal Circuit failed to properly apportion those damages when assessing respondent’s lost profits. 

The brief points to a long line of precedent describing how patent damages should be apportioned – evaluating “the profits that the patent holder would have made but for the defendant’s infringement” and then “apportion[ing] the calculated profits between those attributable to the infringing features of the product, and those attributable to other, non-infringing, features.”  Amici argue that the Federal Circuit’s decision below is legally deficient (insofar as it fails to follow this precedent) and represents bad patent policy (insofar as it may adversely impact high-tech defendants, which develop products covered by hundreds or thousands of patents, and improperly overcompensate patentees).

Fall term Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic students Brian Lebow and Ben Shiroma worked with Chris Bavitz in the Clinic, and with Professor Chao, on the brief.

Clinic Supports Public Citizen and EFF in Small Justice Amicus Effort

Via Cyberlaw Clinic

The Cyberlaw Clinic supported Public Citizen and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in filing an amicus brief (pdf) today in the case, Small Justice LLC v. Xcentric Ventures LLC, Case No. 15-1506, pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  The case raises important questions about the interplay between copyright law and laws protecting free expression, including the immunity granted to platforms that host content uploaded by users pursuant to Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act.  Paul Levy of Public Citizen wrote a detailed post about the brief here.

The case has a long and somewhat convoluted history, arising from a report entitled “Complaint Review: Richard A. Goren” (“the Report”). The Report was posted to the consumer reporting website Ripoff Report on January 31, 2012.  Mr. Goren filed a defamation lawsuit against the pseudonymous poster of the Report, and a justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court ruled that the copyright in the Report should be transferred to Mr. Goren.  Mr. Goren and his company, Small Justice LLC, then used the transferred copyright in an attempt to enforce rights against Ripoff Report’s parent company, Xcentric Ventures, and have the review removed.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts refused to give force to the involuntary transfer of copyright.  Amici argued in their brief to the Court of Appeals that this was the right result, noting that, “[i]f Goren’s end run around section 230 were permitted to succeed, it could create a roadmap whereby any plaintiff, regardless of the merits of his claims, could skew public discussion by suppressing critical speech.”

Fall 2015 Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic students Charles McGonigal and Will Piereson and former Clinical Fellow Andy Sellars, along with the Clinic’s Managing Director Christopher Bavitz, contributed to the brief.

Cyberlaw Clinic Protects the Right to Post “Ballot Selfies”

Via Cyberlaw Clinic

The Cyberlaw Clinic filed an amicus brief (PDF) at the United States Court of a Appeals for the First Circuit, on behalf of the New England First Amendment Coalition and the Keene Sentinel. The case, Rideout v. Gardner, concerns a law passed by the State of New Hampshire to prevent “ballot selfies” – photos of completed ballots that are posted on social media. The brief argues that the law is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, as it prohibits a variety of speech important to monitoring the government, educating voters and engaging in political debate.

The statute at issue is N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 659:35, which prohibits “taking a digital image or photograph of [one’s] marked ballot and distributing or sharing the image via social media.” As the brief notes, if the statute were allowed to stand, it would prohibit many types of speech that play important roles in elections, and democracy more generally. The law bars voters from raising questions about improprieties they find on their ballots, criticizing the government for poor ballot design, or engaging in advocacy for a candidate. The brief notes specific examples of times when photographs of ballots helped the public clear up misunderstandings about government conduct, demonstrated how to ensure that one’s vote would be counted, and conveyed messages about civic participation and advocacy for a candidate that could not expressed with words alone.

A copy of the brief is available here, and more information about it can be found at NEFAC’s website. Spring 2016 Cyberlaw Clinic students Michael Linhorst and Jacqueline Wolpoe took the lead on this brief, working closely with Managing Director Chris Bavitz and Clinical Fellow Andy Sellars.

Cravath fellows travel globally to experience international and comparative law

Via HLS News

Thirteen Harvard Law School students were selected as the 2016 Cravath International Fellows. The fellows traveled to 12 countries for winter term clinical placements or independent research with an international, transnational, or comparative law focus. Below are accounts of the experiences of four of the new fellows.

Crystal Nwaneri ’17

Crystal Nwaneri ’17 spent winter term in Singapore, conducting research on the legal and technological implications of a court ruling permitting a third party to retransmit over-the-air television without permission of the broadcasters. For Nwaneri, this was a chance to further explore her long-standing interest in the legal challenges brought about by rapidly advancing technology.

As an undergraduate, Nwaneri examined public policy and how legislators and private organizations shape and regulate the technology industry. Prior to law school, she worked at Dell’s government relations office in Washington, D.C., briefing their executives on the internet technology issues discussed at Congressional hearings.

Upon entering Harvard Law, she enrolled in a reading group with Professor of Practice Urs Gasser about the future of online privacy, joined the Women’s Law Association and the Harvard Black Law Students Association, and began working as an editor at the Journal of Law and Technology. As a 2L, she is focusing on the legal infrastructures that support technology innovation, which may affect access for underserved communities. She also supports clients in the Cyberlaw Clinic and is a research assistant with the Student Privacy Initiative at the Berkman Center.

Continue Reading

Clinic Works w/Law Scholars to Argue Against Copyright in Legal Codes

Via Cyberlaw Clinic

Cover PageThis week, the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, on behalf of a group of esteemed law scholars, filed an amicus brief (pdf) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) v. Amici argue in the brief that model codes incorporated into law are not, and should not be, copyrightable. Several standards developing organizations (SDOs) – including ASTM, theNational Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) – filed the lawsuit against Public Resource back in 2013, alleging copyright and trademark infringement. After a lengthy discovery process, the federal District Court in D.C. is currently considering motions for summary judgment from both parties.

SDOs are groups – generally non-profits – that, with the help of experts and volunteers, promulgate model codes and standards to address the needs of particular technical fields. Some of these organizations sell their codes in print and digital formats, often for steep prices.

While compliance with a model code is initially voluntary, compliance becomes mandatory when that code is incorporated into law. Such incorporation means that all citizens of a relevant jurisdiction are obligated to follow the text of the code to the letter.

Continue Reading

Cyberlaw Clinic Presents at WeRobot 2015

IMG_0277-300x300Via the Cyberlaw Clinic

Spring 2015 Cyberlaw Clinic students Jack Xu and Cecillia Xie joined the Clinic’s Managing Director Chris Bavitz on a trip to Seattle last month to participate in the WeRobot 2015 robotics law and policy conference at University of Washington School of Law in Seattle. Accompanied by Chelsea Barabas of the MIT Center for Civic Media, the Clinic’s representatives attended the conference to present their working draft paper entitled, “Legal and Ethical Issues in the Use of Telepresence Robots:  Best Practices and Toolkit.” J. Nathan Matias, also of the Center for Civic Media, contributed to the paper but was unable to attend the event.

Chris, Jack, Cecillia, and Chelsea joined discussant Laurel Riek of Notre Dame for a panel discussion about the paper and, more broadly, about privacy and related concerns that arise in connection with the use of telepresence robots. The draft paper and panel discussion helped to lay the groundwork for development a broader law and policy toolkit examining legal concerns that arise in connection with the use of telepresence robots. Professor Riek’s approach — grounding the project in the literature of AI and robotics research — helped to guide the discussion, which focused on the Clinic’s methodology and the scope and scale of its work.

Continue reading the story here.

Clinic Files Amicus Brief on Free Speech Issue in Massachusetts

cyberlawVia the Cyberlaw Clinic

On Tuesday, the Cyberlaw Clinic filed an amicus brief (PDF) in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts on behalf of the New England First Amendment Coalition, Boston Globe Media Partners, LLC (owners of the Boston Globe), Hearst Television, Inc. (owners of WCVB-TV Channel 5 in Boston), the Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers Association, the New England Newspaper and Press Association, Inc., and the New England Society of Newspaper Editors in Commonwealth v. Lucas, SJC-11830. The case was brought under the Massachusetts false campaign speech law, M.G.L. ch. 56 § 42 (“Section 42″). The defendant in the case, a treasurer with a political action committee that sent a mailer in the 2014 state election, challenged the constitutionality of the statute under the First Amendment and Article 16 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.

The brief argues that Section 42 is an unconstitutional restriction on the content of speech, and is also unconstitutionally vague. The brief describes the robust protection for speech in the realm of political debate, and notes several cases in other jurisdictions where courts struck false campaign speech statutes. As those cases note, counterspeech by political opponents is the preferred way to remedy misleading political speech, and statutes that criminalize false speech for the sake of protecting listeners are usually instead used as tools to extract partisan revenge by filing frivolous criminal complaints.

Continue reading the full story here.

Harvard Law champions entrepreneurship and innovation

A native of California who came to HLS with an interest in startups and business, Shant Hagopian ’15 gave legal advice to entrepreneurs as a student in the Transactional Law Clinic during his 2L year. Shortly thereafter, he co-founded Virtudent, a tele-dentistry startup designed to increase oral health care access for underserved populations. Credit: Heratch Photography

A native of California who came to HLS with an interest in startups and business, Shant Hagopian ’15 gave legal advice to entrepreneurs as a student in the Transactional Law Clinic during his 2L year. Shortly thereafter, he co-founded Virtudent, a tele-dentistry startup designed to increase oral health care access for underserved populations.
Credit: Heratch Photography

Via HLS News

The moment Shant Hagopian ’15 stepped through the doors of the Harvard Innovation Lab, the air was abuzz with the energy of wildly creative ideas, and he knew Harvard Law School had been the right choice for him.

“The first time I walked into the i-lab I thought, ‘Wow, this is a really cool place,’” says Hagopian, a native of California who came to HLS with an interest in startups and business. “The i-lab brings together students from many different academic backgrounds to launch their ideas for how the world should look in the future.”

The i-lab, a collaborative workspace and idea incubator at Harvard University which champions entrepreneurship and innovation, connects students, faculty, and other creative idea-makers from across the university to resources, thought leaders, and funding sources. Since launching in 2011, it has drawn scores of law students who’ve worked on a wide variety of cutting-edge projects—some law-related, and many not.

Credit: Martha Stewart Chris Bavitz, Clinical Professor of Law and managing director of the HLS Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society

Credit: Martha Stewart
Chris Bavitz, Clinical Professor of Law and managing director of the HLS Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society

“Anyone with a Harvard ID can tap in, sit down, and do their thing,” says Chris Bavitz, Clinical Professor of Law and managing director of the HLS Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and Dean’s Designate to the i-lab. “That means anything from having shared space to work to looking at a physical bulletin board where people are looking for a software developer or lawyer. Nearly every night of the week, there’s programming about venture capital or how to deal with employment issues or any number of other legal and business concerns that startups face.”

As a 2L in the HLS Transactional Law Clinics , which holds office hours at the i-lab where law students give legal advice to entrepreneurs, Hagopian found himself wanting to make the leap to the other side and become an entrepreneur himself.

Just a few months later, he did—as a co-founder of Virtudent, a tele-dentistry startup created by a friend, Dr. Hitesh Tolani, a graduate from the University of Pennsylvania School of Dental Medicine. Hagopian introduced Virtudent to the i-lab, where doors quickly opened and connections were made. Last year, Virtudent, designed to increase oral health care access for underserved populations, was a finalist in the 2014 President’s Challenge, which offers a $100,000 prize for the most innovative idea for solving a complex societal problem. Though it didn’t win the grand prize, Virtudent received initial funding from Harvard and will soon be rolling out.

Continue reading the full story here.

Dean Minow challenges students to seek solutions to problems in the U.S. food system

The Deans’ Food System Challenge, one of a series of university-wide challenges organized by the Harvard Innovation Lab (i-lab), is co-sponsored by Harvard Law School Dean Minow and Julio Frenk, dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in collaboration with the Food Law and Policy Clinic at HLS.

Credit: Evgenia Eliseeva | The Deans’ Food System Challenge, one of a series of university-wide challenges organized by the Harvard Innovation Lab (i-lab), is co-sponsored by Harvard Law School Dean Minow and Julio Frenk, dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, in collaboration with the Food Law and Policy Clinic at HLS.

Via HLS News

This fall, Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow and Julio Frenk, dean of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, issued a challenge to students across the university to come up with fresh ideas for solving complex problems facing our food system.

Each year, the Harvard Innovation Lab holds a range of university-wide competitions sponsored by Harvard schools asking students to address problems in a given area of focus. The Deans’ Food System Challenge, the first sponsored by HLS, was developed in collaboration with the school’s Food Law and Policy Clinic. It seeks proposals for making the food system healthier, more sustainable and more equitable, both in the United States and around the world.

“Our current methods for producing, distributing and consuming food are simply unsustainable,” said Minow. “Harvard Law School is committed to human rights, social justice and creating opportunities for people who are marginalized and unheard. Improving the food system is key to addressing these issues. The challenge focuses on addressing economic, health and social inequities in the food systems in this country and around the world.”

Participants are encouraged to form interdisciplinary teams and develop projects that address one of four topics: food production, distribution and markets, improving diet, and reducing food waste. Finalists will be announced in April. Each finalist team will receive $5,000 to put toward developing its proposal. In May, $50,000 will be distributed among one winner and up to four runners-up.

Minow launched the competition on Oct. 27, at a Harvard i-lab event featuring keynote speaker Ayr Muir, CEO of Clover Food Lab. A range of related events are taking place throughout the year at the i-lab, as well as a series of lectures and presentations across the university coordinated by the Food Law and Policy Clinic and various partners, as part of a broader “Food Better” campaign. (Watch the Food Better Symposium.)

Among those working on the challenge are: Emily Broad Leib ’08, deputy director of the Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation at HLS and director of the center’s Food Law and Policy Clinic; Christopher Bavitz, clinical professor and managing director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and the dean’s designate to the i-lab; and Ona Balkus J.D./M.P.H. ’13, a fellow at the clinic.

Congratulations to our Colleague Christopher Bavitz on his CCTV’s Leading Role Award

Christopher Bavitz, Clinical Professor of Law and Managing Director, Cyberlaw Clinic

Christopher Bavitz, Clinical Professor of Law and Managing Director, Cyberlaw Clinic

Via Cambridge Community Television (CCTV) 

Christopher Bavitz, Managing Director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at Harvard’s Berkman Center for Internet & Society, and Clinical Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, will receive CCTV’s Leading Role Award at the Back Lot BBQ on Thursday, September 18. The award honors people who work tirelessly behind the scenes to make our community a better place. Through his work at the Berkman Center and beyond, Chris focuses on media law, copyright, and speech, ensuring that the rights of CCTV’s many constituencies are protected.

Chris, and Cambridge residents and news commentators Jim Braude and Callie Crossley, will be inducted onto CCTV’s Honorary Board. Jim is host of Broadside: The News with with Jim Braude on NECN and co-hosts Boston Public Radio on WGBH with Marjery Eagan. Callie hosts Under the Radar with Callie Crossley, also on WGBH.

CCTV is excited and honored to be joined by such accomplished professionals, who will help guide us into the future. Share in the celebration at the Back Lot BBQ! Buy tickets here.

Congratulations to Chris Bavitz and Esme Caramello on their Clinical Professor of Law Appointments!

Via HLS News
Until now, Esme Caramello ’99 has been a lecturer on law and clinical instructor at the law school as well as deputy director of the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau.

“Esme’s experience in tenants’ rights is second to none,” said Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow. “Under her guidance, students connect practice and theory to solve important legal and policy issues affecting low-income individuals. Passionate and compassionate, her strategic approach ensures that the Harvard Legal Aid Bureau will continue to lead in vital work. And it is wonderful to welcome an HLS alumna onto the clinical faculty!” Read the full story on HLS News.

Until now, Christopher T. Bavitz has been a Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law at HLS and is Managing Director of the Cyberlaw Clinic at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society.

“Chris brings imagination and deep experience in the digital and intellectual property worlds; his wide-ranging knowledge of media and IP law and his talent for creative problem-solving enable our students and colleagues to engage in exciting and meaningful advocacy and policy work,” said Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow. “His role in Harvard’s Digital Problem-Solving Initiative and in building ties with the University’s i-Lab are models for cross-disciplinary thinking and innovation.” Read the full story on HLS News.

Cyberlaw Clinic: 2013 Year in Review

Via: The Cyberlaw Clinic

As we make our way through the short 2014 winter term and start thinking ahead to spring, it seems like a good time to take stock of goings-on here at the Cyberlaw Clinic over the past twelve months.

2013 was, by many measures, our busiest year to date. More than fifty students enrolled in the Clinic during the winter and spring terms of the 2012-13 academic year and the fall term of 2013-14. Five interns supported the Clinic’s work during the summer months and participated in the Berkman Center’s summer internship program.

Summer 2013 also saw some significant changes for the Cyberlaw Clinic. Phil Malone, who ran the Clinic from 2004 through June of last year, joined the faculty of Stanford Law School, and Clinic Assistant Director Chris Bavitz became the Clinic’s Managing Director. Clinical Instructor and Lecturer on Law Dalia Topelson and Clinical Instructional Fellow Kit Walsh rounded out the Clinic’s teaching team, and Shannon Walker joined the Clinic in October as its first dedicated Project Coordinator.

Continue reading the full story here.

Exciting Changes in the Cyberlaw Clinic

Congratulations to Chris Bavitz, who has been promoted to Managing Director of the Cyberlaw Clinic. Susan Crawford, a Berkman Director, will be a Visiting Professor at HLS in 2014 and serve as a senior advisor to the clinic during that time. Read more about the Cyberlaw clinical team on the Berkman Center website.

Cyberlaw Clinic’s Chris Bavitz Interviewed by Marketplace

Via Marketplace:

The biggest name in Internet radio is buying an FM station. Pandora says the move will help the company get its content at a lower cost, but music publishers are crying foul. If the FCC signs off on the sale, Pandora will be the proud owner of KXMZ-FM in Rapid City, S.D., and save about 1 percent of its revenue on music publishing rights….

With the business models in music broadcasting changing so quickly, there’s no royalty structure yet that works for everyone’s bottom line, according to Chris Bavitz, with Harvard Law School’s Berkman Center for Internet and Society. “It’s hard to imagine that we’re going to get to a one size fits all music royalty rate for musical compositions,” Bavitz says.

Saying Goodbye to Cyberlaw’s Phil Malone

We’re still in denial but it’s hard to ignore the reality of a goodbye party. Professor Phil Malone, a man of many hats within the clinical programs, the Berkman Center, and the Harvard community, is headed to California later this summer. Instead of focusing on how terribly we’ll miss him, let’s enjoy a few photos from the party, courtesy of the Berkman Center Flickr stream and Daniel Dennis Jones.

Phil Malone with Julie McCormack and Jill Crockett (Photo by Daniel Dennis Jones)

Dean Martha Minow (far left) and Phil Malone look on during a high five between Phil’s daughter and Chris Bavitz (Photo by Daniel Dennis Jones)

Even the flowers are getting ready for the California sunshine (Photo by Daniel Dennis Jones)

Cyberlaw Clinic Releases Guide for Citizen Journalists

A special shout-out to Cyberlaw Clinic Assistant Director Christopher Bavitz and clinical student Jillian Stonecipher for their work with the Digital Media Law Project on the legal guide “Newsgathering in Massachusetts“. The report provides an overview of legal protections for independent reporters working in Massachusetts and “highlights key doctrines, cases, and statutes and significant recent developments”.