The D.C. Circuit vacated restrictions imposed on a convicted sex offender that required him to keep a daily log of computer use and permit the authorities to monitor that use, saying the trial court failed to articulate why the limits were necessary for a crime not involving the internet.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Bates v.

A judge handed Google a key victory Wednesday by rebuffing Viacom’s $1 billion lawsuit over alleged copyright abuse by Google’s YouTube service. The ruling embraces Google’s interpretation of a “safe harbor” law that shields Internet services from copyright infringement claims as long as they promptly remove illegal content when notified of a violation. The ruling was cheered by Internet service providers and free-speech groups who believe the Digital Millennium Copyright Act gives people an outlet to express themselves.

The 2nd Circuit has certified to New York’s highest court the question of whether a copyright infringement action can be brought in New York against an out-of-state party that uploaded to the Internet unauthorized copies of books and made them available to readers from servers located outside the state. The circuit said that “determining the situs of injury” for purposes of the long-arm statute “in a copyright case requires analysis of state law and policy considerations this court is ill-suited to make.”

International law requires anyone receiving an SOS to “proceed with all possible speed” to help — a “duty to assist.” But despite cyber-attacks like the one that hit Google in China, there is no “duty to assist” on the internet. Temple University professors Duncan B. Hollis and David G