Check out this interview with members of the RIAA and watch how correlation becomes causality. This interview actually links illegal CD's to drug use!!!!
http://idolator.com/359196/riaa-murderers-terrorists-and-other-criminal-minds-may-be-graduating-to-pirating-music
Thursday, February 28, 2008
The other day we talked about how ship hubs can be copyrighted, which may lead to fashion being copyrighted. If this is incorrect please let me know.
Anyway, I was thinking about it and wondering how a designer would be able to copyright a style or fashion, perhaps the way something is buttoned up or the style of cuff on a shirt sleeve, because isn't modern fashions and styles based on historical ones? I've studied costume history on my own and see various styles in dress (especially men's) repeated throughout the centuries. They vary a little but they are all recycled in some way. I'll try to find some comparisons to show you. I will scan some from a book I have and find recent fashions on line.
My point is, how can someone begin to copyright something that has been around for 100s of years? I guess they can do what Bikram did with his "sequence" of poses. It's so ridiculous that this may one day be possible with styles of clothing. what would happen to all those budding designers and tailors who want to practice creating clothing but is too scared to because they don't know what styles are legal to be imitated. Imagine copyright police going up to people on streets demanding you to show them the tag in your shirt or pants to make sure it was created by the person or company who owns the copyright to that specific style.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Foo Fighters Go to Court
On February 21 Rolling Stone released a short article about the Foo Fighters taking Marvel Comics to court. According to the Foo Fighters, Marvel used "substantial excerpts" of two of their songs "Best of You" and "Free Me" for a commercial trailer of an upcoming animated series entitled Wolverine and the X-Men. I tried to find the video online, but Marvel has pulled it from websites. I think this brings up an interesting point somewhat related to the conversation we had in class on Tuesday regarding celebrity/financial power and victory within the current judicial system. The only reason that this court case exists is because both of the parties involved have the money to go head to head in the court room or in an out of court settlement. If Marvel had ripped "substantial excerpts" of an unknown artist's song then the likelihood of the artist successfully defending their music would decrease dramatically.
Photography Rights.
My encounters with IP infractions generally come in the form of photography. For some reason people hate being photographed while in public and more than a few have threatened to sue me. I'm no professional photographer, but I just like taking pictures while I'm out and about.
A friend of mine sent me this link about your right to photograph, I found it pretty interesting.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Most interesting was the fact that you need a warrant to take someone's film/camera, I've been chased by many security guards trying to get my memory cards, so now I know I have legal rights. Just thought it might be something that could happen to anyone so it would be good to know.
A friend of mine sent me this link about your right to photograph, I found it pretty interesting.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Most interesting was the fact that you need a warrant to take someone's film/camera, I've been chased by many security guards trying to get my memory cards, so now I know I have legal rights. Just thought it might be something that could happen to anyone so it would be good to know.
NYU's Secret P2P Crackdown
I work in the Law & Society department and the other day I turn on my computer to find that I couldn't get onto the internet. I did a couple things to try and figure out what was wrong, but I ultimately couldn't get an IP address, so I gave in and called ITS. At first they said all they needed to do was get clearance to assign me a new IP address and they would call back. When they did call back, they told me that my internet had been shut off automatically because P2P software was detected on my computer. Now, I use that computer only for work and I hadn't downloaded anything on it other than the newest version of Microsoft Outlook. Nonetheless, they had to come and completely replace my hard drive (taking more than an hour to do so).
It seems bizarre to me that they would take such extreme measures against P2P software (they even made it clear that I didn't have a virus, just P2P software). Obviously that doesn't happen to our personal computers when we log onto the NYU networks, but I'm thinking it has something to do with NYU administrative computers. I really don't know what to make of it because all I know is that ITS has a special detector for P2P on the administrative computers, which could mean many things. I'll leave the story ambiguous so you can decide for yourself (but if anyone knows what's really going on, let me know!).
Springboard
While I was walking down Park avenue I saw a sign in a window of an office for a company called Springboard. My friend's mother runs a company called Springboard so I assumed it was the same thing. I called my friend to tell her and her mom said they were completely unrelated. Then, when I searched on Google for the companies, there were MANY other companies listed with the same name. Who owns the name Springboard and why is it allowed for all these companies to use it whereas the names of so many other companies (i.e. Polo) are heavily protected?
I own the copyright to BBQ cookbooks. Huh?
So I know this has been in the news a bit recently, but I still think the whole thing is interesting. Jerry Seinfeld's wife, Jessica, wrote a cookbook for parents about how to sneak healthy foods into their kids' meals. Great idea, except another woman, Missy Chase Lapine, claims that Jessica ripped off her idea (Lapine's book was published a few months before Jessica's). Lapine is now suing Jessica Seinfeld for a copyright violation. I'm not sure whether the recipes are the same (i don't believe that they are), but I find it very interesting that someone is claiming to own the concept of a cookbook. Also it's funny, because Lapine is suing in part for slander and defamation after Jerry Seinfeld made fun of her on the David Letterman show...
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20169895,00.html?xid=rss-fullcontentcnn
http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20169895,00.html?xid=rss-fullcontentcnn
NYMag and a takeout menu
The other day I saw a Chinese takeout menu sitting in the lobby of my apartment building. The front of the menu was covered with many words in at least 7 different fonts. Despite the clutter of words, three particular words in a particular font immediately caught my attention: New York Kitchen. At first glance I thought that this takeout menu was somehow related to New York Magazine because the font was strikingly similar to the NYMag logo. I use NY Magazine's website a lot for restaurant information because the people who rate things on that website tend to be more discerning than those who use menupages or citysearch. For a restaurant to even be listed on NY Magazine's website means that it is at least fairly tastey. (I can't say the same for the other websites). My initial impression was that the restaurant must be good because I associated the restaurant with NY Magazine. After about 3 seconds of staring at the menu I realized that it was unlikely that NY Magazine would endorse a restaurant like this and that the menu was not related to the magazine. This got me thinking about the Bollier reading and how companies have privatized certain words. NY Magazine probably has some sort of protection over its logo. I wonder how they would feel if they saw this Chinese takeout menu.
Google/Viacom Lawsuit
An update on the Googe/Viacom lawsuit regarding YouTube...
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/google/judge-gives-google-a-viacom-copyright-lawsuit-extension.html
http://blog.tmcnet.com/blog/rich-tehrani/google/judge-gives-google-a-viacom-copyright-lawsuit-extension.html
Weird Science
When printing out readings for my Anthropology class, I noticed that this disclaimer came attached with it: "Materials received from the Scientific American Archive Online may only be displayed and printed for your personal, non-commercial use following "fair use" guidelines." This seems pretty standard, yet the next line goes on to explain how you must have "written permission from Scientific American, Inc." to reproduce, transmit, or distribute materials." Yet since each student is printing the article-at the request of my teacher-for his or her individual use, it seems that we are still within the fair use scope.
Most interesting, however, was the conclusion of this message. It wrote that not only are you not allow to reproduce, transmit, or distribute via the the Internet or other electronic means, you can not do so "through any other type of technology-currently available or that may be developed in the future." Honestly, how can you declare something illegal that has yet to be created?! Even more ironically, this is a SCIENTIFIC magazine. I am sure they openly support technological advances-as long as it doesn't interfere with unauthorized production of the magazine.
Unfortunately, I could not find this original message, but the following link includes some of their terms of use in regard to IP.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Net neutrality hearing
I saw this and thought some might find it interesting...
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/net-neutrality-hearing-when-is-an-internet-traffic-delay-ok/
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/25/net-neutrality-hearing-when-is-an-internet-traffic-delay-ok/
More picture taking
I have read several posts from the class on the copyright infringement violations of picture-taking in public places and have had multiple encounters with this. The faux-froyo franchise Pinkberry explicitly states on their door entrance that photos cannot be taken inside the store. Similarly, I was at a Whole Foods in Brentwood and a man was taking pictures when a store employee approached him and told him that if he did not stop, he would be escorted out.
I am curious as to why these places can enforce picture-taking restrictions while other restaurants often welcome the use of cameras. On numerous occasions I have seen restaurant patrons snapping photos of their friends and asking restaurant employees to take a photo of the group; most of the latter happily oblige.
I am curious as to why these places can enforce picture-taking restrictions while other restaurants often welcome the use of cameras. On numerous occasions I have seen restaurant patrons snapping photos of their friends and asking restaurant employees to take a photo of the group; most of the latter happily oblige.
Copyrighting Food?
Copyright and Functionality:Thoughts on Copyrighting Food: Aesthetics and Function
Comments by
Robert A. Baron Posted: 2/3/98 to cni-copyright@cni.org
At 08:49 AM 2/2/98 -0800, Iris Brest wrote:>>On 1/30/98, Robert A. Baron <
Robert A. Baron> wrote:>> >> Analogously, when a cake is produced by following a recipe, there must>> be a copyright in the final product (ephemeral though that product may>> be). Now that food is being shown in museums as works of art, this is>> not as bizarre as it may at first seem. But, if the underlying recipe>> were to be copyrighted, we must ask whether the cake is somehow>> derivative of the recipe. What if the recipe contained a picture of>> what the final cake were to look like; would the final product be>> derivative of that image? I'd say that the recipe serves as a procedure>> which is analogous to an "idea," the production of which -- the cake -->> is copyrightable and fixed. The picture that accompanies the recipe is>> not "copied" by the baked cake, but merely serves as a visualization of>> what the procedure leads to. >>Why a derivative work? Or rather, why not a performance of the work?
Because the Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating, not in the making.
===
Some of the discussions during the last few days regarding the copyrightability of food set up an opposition between the "utility" or functionality of food and its aesthetic presence. If food is merely functional, then copyright law cannot be applied to it; however, if it is a "creation" in the sense that it is "aesthetic," then (Jessica Litman's "Eleven Yummy Flavors" aside notwithstanding) food would seem to be subject to copyright as a creative object.
It is interesting how this dichotomy of "functional" vs. "aesthetic" is used in law to apply copyright, especially since the history of art in this century has gone to great efforts to show that these distinctions are not quite real. The Dada movement of the early decades of this century went to great pains to reveal in functional objects their aesthetic alter egos. Toilet bowls, clothing irons, teacups, stools and bicycles among other items were transformed by Dada artists into unusable items of artistic import by intentionally subverting their conventional functions. Thus a toilet bowl is up-ended and renamed "Fountain;" a clothing iron (dubbed "Gift") is ruined by tacks welded to its flat end, teacups are fur-lined, bicycle wheels spun upside-down on a barstool pedestal and so on. The results of these experiments led to the conclusion that mundane functional elements had aesthetic import and that only by conscious acts could these characteristics be separated. Thus Claes Oldenberg, working in a neo-Dada spirit, builds a "soft" toilet, or the Museum of Modern Art enshrines objects of commercial manufacture in display cases so better to enhance the appreciation of the aesthetics of function. And here, expectedly, the very process of display subconsciously sabotages the object's functionality.
This is the context in which the question of "food" as art must be understood. Since any object, from a "functional" chair to a cork-screw can become a work of art, to be appreciated independently of its function, then a cake, if so claimed, can be a work of art or function as an edible desert. It can be both, of course, but not at the same time. (Typically the cake would be a work of art first and an edible second; though, I can envision a contemporary performance artist who might wish to reverse the process.)
The above parenthetical remark notwithstanding, under such circumstances it is easy to understand why a great pastry chef would want to copyright a cake or patent its formulation -- just as Merk patents its medicines.
What remains of functionality if design elements can be copyrighted? I suppose we are cast back into the world of Platonic essences: "chairness" and "corkscrewness" is all that is left. The logical conclusion of this enterprise leads to a society will become paralyzed under the force of too many competing interests. Such a society must ask itself anew what should be kept in the public domain and what should not.
http://www.studiolo.org/Email/CP.htm
Comments by
Robert A. Baron Posted: 2/3/98 to cni-copyright@cni.org
At 08:49 AM 2/2/98 -0800, Iris Brest wrote:>>On 1/30/98, Robert A. Baron <
Robert A. Baron> wrote:>> >> Analogously, when a cake is produced by following a recipe, there must>> be a copyright in the final product (ephemeral though that product may>> be). Now that food is being shown in museums as works of art, this is>> not as bizarre as it may at first seem. But, if the underlying recipe>> were to be copyrighted, we must ask whether the cake is somehow>> derivative of the recipe. What if the recipe contained a picture of>> what the final cake were to look like; would the final product be>> derivative of that image? I'd say that the recipe serves as a procedure>> which is analogous to an "idea," the production of which -- the cake -->> is copyrightable and fixed. The picture that accompanies the recipe is>> not "copied" by the baked cake, but merely serves as a visualization of>> what the procedure leads to. >>Why a derivative work? Or rather, why not a performance of the work?
Because the Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating, not in the making.
===
Some of the discussions during the last few days regarding the copyrightability of food set up an opposition between the "utility" or functionality of food and its aesthetic presence. If food is merely functional, then copyright law cannot be applied to it; however, if it is a "creation" in the sense that it is "aesthetic," then (Jessica Litman's "Eleven Yummy Flavors" aside notwithstanding) food would seem to be subject to copyright as a creative object.
It is interesting how this dichotomy of "functional" vs. "aesthetic" is used in law to apply copyright, especially since the history of art in this century has gone to great efforts to show that these distinctions are not quite real. The Dada movement of the early decades of this century went to great pains to reveal in functional objects their aesthetic alter egos. Toilet bowls, clothing irons, teacups, stools and bicycles among other items were transformed by Dada artists into unusable items of artistic import by intentionally subverting their conventional functions. Thus a toilet bowl is up-ended and renamed "Fountain;" a clothing iron (dubbed "Gift") is ruined by tacks welded to its flat end, teacups are fur-lined, bicycle wheels spun upside-down on a barstool pedestal and so on. The results of these experiments led to the conclusion that mundane functional elements had aesthetic import and that only by conscious acts could these characteristics be separated. Thus Claes Oldenberg, working in a neo-Dada spirit, builds a "soft" toilet, or the Museum of Modern Art enshrines objects of commercial manufacture in display cases so better to enhance the appreciation of the aesthetics of function. And here, expectedly, the very process of display subconsciously sabotages the object's functionality.
This is the context in which the question of "food" as art must be understood. Since any object, from a "functional" chair to a cork-screw can become a work of art, to be appreciated independently of its function, then a cake, if so claimed, can be a work of art or function as an edible desert. It can be both, of course, but not at the same time. (Typically the cake would be a work of art first and an edible second; though, I can envision a contemporary performance artist who might wish to reverse the process.)
The above parenthetical remark notwithstanding, under such circumstances it is easy to understand why a great pastry chef would want to copyright a cake or patent its formulation -- just as Merk patents its medicines.
What remains of functionality if design elements can be copyrighted? I suppose we are cast back into the world of Platonic essences: "chairness" and "corkscrewness" is all that is left. The logical conclusion of this enterprise leads to a society will become paralyzed under the force of too many competing interests. Such a society must ask itself anew what should be kept in the public domain and what should not.
http://www.studiolo.org/Email/CP.htm
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Maybe there's hope?
I'm currently working with a band (basically helping them find and target a specific market for their music) and have contacted a few of my younger cousins and friends to see what they thought of the band's music. I was quite suprised when I talked to my cousin and he really liked the band and asked "where can I buy their music?" Needless to say, this gave me a bit of hope for the industry. My 16 year old cousin actually liked a band and, rather than asking me to file share mp3's of their music or attempting to download just a few songs for free from the band's myspace, he actually WANTED to buy the music. After talking with him a bit more he said that most of his friends would probably like their music and want to buy it as well. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic, but if a group of 16 year olds can understand that when you buy music you are supporting an artist that you appreciate and admire, then maybe things can work out in the long run. Everyone always says "knowledge is power," so perhaps we can have what Bollier calls a "moral re-education" to teach the younger generations that music is worth paying for? And maybe some of them will actually listen.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
"Xerox accuses Hillary campaign of trademark infringement"
Read the blog and responses that go with that title:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/22/0150/76205
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/22/0150/76205
Current Copryright Case
This is an interesting copyright suit. My professor of my public relations class is a vice-president at College Board and she told our class about this law suit going on. Allegedly, a Texas-based SAT prep center used stolen “live” tests to create their study guides. College Board reuses their exams and until a text is retired it is considered “live”. As you guys know, protecting these “live” tests is a pretty big deal and strict security measures are used at text sites to protect them. Apparently a high school principal (who’s been fired) is accused of stealing the test and giving it to his brother who worked for the text prep center. You would think that College Board would be trying to press legal charges for the physical theft, but my Professor said the courts wouldn’t really be interested in that. Instead they are suing based on copyright infringement. The center re-printed the exact exam and pretended to have created it themselves. Pretty shady business for a text prep center and principal to steal tests. I didn’t get any help when I took mine. I wouldn’t want anyone else to get that kind of help. I hope the prep center gets murdered in court, but I think it’s interesting that the law is designed to help protect Copyright first over physical property theft.
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/20/america/SAT-Lawsuit.php
~Adriana Mozzo
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/02/20/america/SAT-Lawsuit.php
~Adriana Mozzo
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Picture Taking is Violation of Copyright?
It's obvious how close these dresses appear to be. One was made in the early 1900's and the red one was displayed on the runway only last year. While at the Metropolitain Museum of Art I noticed this and thought it was pretty interesting how the whole concept of the first dress is the detail in which it falls. It's hard to see by the photo, but the dresses are both folded in very small layers on top and flow into larger layers on the bottom.
As I was taking this picture, I had a guard approach me and tell me to stop. It's the Met! People take (non-flash) photos all the time! There was even a sign posted above the stairs that said "No Flash Photography" it did not say "No Cameras". When I asked him why, he told me I was in violating the designer's copyright and I could have my camera confiscated and be asked to leave.
I made the mistake of beginning to laugh because the designer had already (technically) had the entire copyrighted idea of the first dress violated with the replica sitting beside it, although the fashion industry allows it. He didn't find that as funny. I also might have said something about how only a real police officer can actually confiscate my camera.
I did, however, know that he could ask me to leave. So I packed my camera away and left before too many of my comments sunk in and I got tossed out.
I just found it a little funny.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Pirate On!
I came across this article a few weeks ago, but it seems even more relevant in light of the class we had with Ray Beckerman last week and our recent discussions about social awareness of this issue. Pirate Bay which is a bit torrent tracker is being sued for copyright infringement, however the four men that are being accused said that even if they are convicted the site will continue to operate as usual. The article also said that people in Sweden (where the four men were arrested) took to the streets in protest and the four men have become a kind of "folk hero." This kind of public out cry and refusal to just settle under the pressure of huge media companies seems to be a step in the right direction toward some kind of copyright reform.
Here is a link to the article from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/technology/01pirate.html?ref=worldbusiness
And a link to Pirate Bay where they have a section about the legal action that has been taken against them dating back to 2002:
http://thepiratebay.org/
Finally, here is a link the international activist group that supports Pirate Bay called the Pirate Party. They have an online chat room meeting coming up February 26th for anyone who is interested:
http://www.pirate-party.us/main
Here is a link to the article from the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/01/technology/01pirate.html?ref=worldbusiness
And a link to Pirate Bay where they have a section about the legal action that has been taken against them dating back to 2002:
http://thepiratebay.org/
Finally, here is a link the international activist group that supports Pirate Bay called the Pirate Party. They have an online chat room meeting coming up February 26th for anyone who is interested:
http://www.pirate-party.us/main
Plagiarism through the ages
mental _floss, a great general-interest magazine and blog has compiled 4 famous cases of plagiarism, in response to the Clinton campaign's allegations of plagiarism in an Obama speech. "I Have a Dream" is on here, an interesting twist in the ownership issues we've read about with that speech in particular. The comments are also pretty chock-full of funny and famous anecdotes.
Naked Cowboy M&M
see this article from the New York Post.
As it turns out, even the Naked Cowboy (Robert Burke) in Times Square has trademark issues. Mars Inc created a video billboard in Time Square featuring an M&M dressed to resemble the Burke's cowboy persona. Last week Burke filed a $6 million trademark-infringement lawsuit against Mars to get them to stop using his likeness in their advertising. Mars has since taken down the billboard.
As it turns out, even the Naked Cowboy (Robert Burke) in Times Square has trademark issues. Mars Inc created a video billboard in Time Square featuring an M&M dressed to resemble the Burke's cowboy persona. Last week Burke filed a $6 million trademark-infringement lawsuit against Mars to get them to stop using his likeness in their advertising. Mars has since taken down the billboard.
RIAA video leaked
Via Slashdot and Wired:
According to this article, the RIAA has produced a video directed at District Attorneys encouraging them to get involved in prosecuting copyright cases. Most notably the video encourages DAs to get RIAA investigators 'qualified as expert witnesses', and suggests that going after piracy can lead to 'bigger fish' such as guns and drugs.
According to this article, the RIAA has produced a video directed at District Attorneys encouraging them to get involved in prosecuting copyright cases. Most notably the video encourages DAs to get RIAA investigators 'qualified as expert witnesses', and suggests that going after piracy can lead to 'bigger fish' such as guns and drugs.
This is a good example of someone using copyright law for the wrong purpose. Michael Savage, a radio host, is suing the Council for American-Islamic Relations because they posted a clip of him saying pretty racist things about Muslims. The EFF is backing the Council because under fair use you should be able to use clips to criticize people's statements. The link is below...
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080201-radio-host-uses-copyright-lawsuit-to-silence-muslim-critics-eff-fights-back.html
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080201-radio-host-uses-copyright-lawsuit-to-silence-muslim-critics-eff-fights-back.html
Evidence for the Collective Subconscious?
After reading in this week's reading about the collective subconscious and the case law that has given some credibility to the argument that a person may write a song or produce an art without realizing that they've taken the idea directly from something obvious in their surroundings, I was reminded of a scene in my favorite movie 'Waking Life.' If you've ever seen the movie, you know that it's a bunch of vignettes that discuss various philosophies and abstract schools of thought. In one, Ethan Hawke and his girlfriend are lying in bed talking about the collective subconscious. They start talking about a study that took a group of people and had them do a series of crossword puzzles, ones they've never seen before and know nothing about except the puzzle itself. They found, out of nowhere, that crossword puzzles that had been released a week before were much easier to solve than the ones that hadn't been released yet. They use this as evidence to prove that when the ideas are already "somewhere out there," we can tangentially sense the thoughts.
Here is an article I found that relates.
This is further proof for the fact that it is next to impossible to decipher the arcane and complex ways in which we form our ideas. There seem to be hundreds of other speculations and potential legal defenses about how the mysterious process of cultural production actually occurs. If anything, this should teach us that applying a rigid set of statutes to something so intangible will only result in a stifling of creativity (thought I'd throw in my opinion there).
Petition to: "Abolish the Digital Millenium Copyright Act" FYI
To: US Congress and the Judiciary
We, the undersigned, are citizens who believe that the anti-circumvention provisions in Chapter 12 of the U.S. Copyright Act, enacted in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") must be repealed or struck down as unconstitutional. We believe that this law contradicts the interest that we, the People, intended when we delegated Congress the Constitutional Power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". We agree with Julie Cohen, writing for 46 intellectual property professors who find that "The DMCA's anti-device provisions are not a valid exercise of any of Congress' enumerated powers." We endorse their amicus brief submitted in Universal v. Corley: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprofs_amicus.html We agree with the Supreme Court that copyright is not a birth right, but a "wholely statutory" grant (Wharton v. Peters, 1834). The Copyright grant exists by the grace of the public as a public investment for the public benefit, much like a loan. "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors" (US v. Paramount Pictures, 1948; Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984). This DMCA wrongly inhibits fair use of digital material by giving publishers a false right to control access to their digital material. Fair use is the quid-pro-quo that we, the People, demand in return for a temporary exclusive right to profit from a particular expression of one's work. We agree with Justice Stevens that copyright has "never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work" (Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984). We agree with Justice O'Connor that "The author's consent to a reasonable use of his copyrighted works had always been implied by the courts as a necessary incident of the constitutional policy of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, since a prohibition of such use would inhibit subsequent writers from attempting to improve upon prior works and thus . . . frustrate the very ends sought to be attained." (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 1985). These requirements are Constitutional in origin: “First Amendment protections… [are] embodied in the Copyright Act’s distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas, and in the latitude for scholarship and comment traditionally afforded by fair use.” (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 1985). Moreover, the DMCA denies basic property rights to purchasers of tangible goods. The doctrine of First Sale protects these property rights, and includes but is not limited to - the right to private performance of audio-visual works (PREI v. Columbia, 1993) - a right to display works, 17 USC 109(c) - a right to copy or adapt digital software works for utilization with a machine 17 USC 117(a)(1) - a right to copy or adapt digital software works for archival purposes In stark contrast, the DMCA takes these property rights from their owners and gives them permanently to publishers. We reject the notion that First Sale provides only the right to resell as advanced to defend the DMCA by certain Courts and the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office recently published a report to Congress about the effect of the DMCA on First Sale without mentioning these rights. To ignore the impact of the DMCA in particular on an owner's private performance right per PREI v. Columbia is an egregious omission. We reject the report and believe it grossly misstates the negative impact to the public of the DMCA. We agree with Professor Felten that the DMCA chills speech and the progress of science in the arena of computer security. We believe that the DMCA will harm, not help, the interests of authors and citizens for this reason. We reject security through censorship. We agree with the 17 eminent Computer Science professors represented by James Tyre and the 8 leading Cryptologists represented by Jennifer Granick that: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_crypto_amicus.html - Computer Code is Expressive Speech. - Academics and Programmers Must Have the Freedom to Communicate Fully in Code. - Source Code And Object Code Are Copyrightable And Thus Entitled To Full First Amendment Protection. - The Protection Given To Code Cannot Be Limited On Account of "Functionality". - The Encryption Research Exemption Is Insufficient - The Anti-dissemination provisions are content based - The DMCA harms rather than furthers a substantial public interest - Inventing false new rights for publishers and effectivly eliminating fair use are not "narrowly tailored" means against copyright infringement In particular, we reject the regulation of code as symbolic conduct under the "O'Brien" standard. Code is simply text, which has no conduct inherently associated with it. Code expresses functional ideas, much as a musical score does. It takes a machine and a willing human operator to turn those ideas into conduct. O'Brien was not arrested for carrying instructions on how to burn his draft card. Finally, we view with disgust the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov, who is charged with creating tools to read encrypted books. In the middle ages the pre-reform Catholic Church persecuted scholars who tried to translate the Latin bible into the common vernacular. Today encryption has replaced Latin as the tool of choice to stifle the right to read. The protestants who founded this nation, English bible in hand, would look upon the DMCA with the same disgust that they looked upon the evils of the medieval Catholic Church. For the above reasons, we reject chapter 12 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as unconstitutional and bad policy. We demand that Congress repeal it and that Courts strike it down. Failing the rule of law, we, the People, declare "misuse of copyright" by popular decree, and thereby revoke our grant of Copyright to those works protected by chapter 12 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act until such time as the government restores the Copyright Act to a form consistent with the Constitution and the will of the people.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.html
We, the undersigned, are citizens who believe that the anti-circumvention provisions in Chapter 12 of the U.S. Copyright Act, enacted in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") must be repealed or struck down as unconstitutional. We believe that this law contradicts the interest that we, the People, intended when we delegated Congress the Constitutional Power "to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries". We agree with Julie Cohen, writing for 46 intellectual property professors who find that "The DMCA's anti-device provisions are not a valid exercise of any of Congress' enumerated powers." We endorse their amicus brief submitted in Universal v. Corley: http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_lawprofs_amicus.html We agree with the Supreme Court that copyright is not a birth right, but a "wholely statutory" grant (Wharton v. Peters, 1834). The Copyright grant exists by the grace of the public as a public investment for the public benefit, much like a loan. "The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors" (US v. Paramount Pictures, 1948; Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984). This DMCA wrongly inhibits fair use of digital material by giving publishers a false right to control access to their digital material. Fair use is the quid-pro-quo that we, the People, demand in return for a temporary exclusive right to profit from a particular expression of one's work. We agree with Justice Stevens that copyright has "never accorded the copyright owner complete control over all possible uses of his work" (Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984). We agree with Justice O'Connor that "The author's consent to a reasonable use of his copyrighted works had always been implied by the courts as a necessary incident of the constitutional policy of promoting the progress of science and the useful arts, since a prohibition of such use would inhibit subsequent writers from attempting to improve upon prior works and thus . . . frustrate the very ends sought to be attained." (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 1985). These requirements are Constitutional in origin: “First Amendment protections… [are] embodied in the Copyright Act’s distinction between copyrightable expression and uncopyrightable facts and ideas, and in the latitude for scholarship and comment traditionally afforded by fair use.” (Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 1985). Moreover, the DMCA denies basic property rights to purchasers of tangible goods. The doctrine of First Sale protects these property rights, and includes but is not limited to - the right to private performance of audio-visual works (PREI v. Columbia, 1993) - a right to display works, 17 USC 109(c) - a right to copy or adapt digital software works for utilization with a machine 17 USC 117(a)(1) - a right to copy or adapt digital software works for archival purposes In stark contrast, the DMCA takes these property rights from their owners and gives them permanently to publishers. We reject the notion that First Sale provides only the right to resell as advanced to defend the DMCA by certain Courts and the Copyright Office. The Copyright Office recently published a report to Congress about the effect of the DMCA on First Sale without mentioning these rights. To ignore the impact of the DMCA in particular on an owner's private performance right per PREI v. Columbia is an egregious omission. We reject the report and believe it grossly misstates the negative impact to the public of the DMCA. We agree with Professor Felten that the DMCA chills speech and the progress of science in the arena of computer security. We believe that the DMCA will harm, not help, the interests of authors and citizens for this reason. We reject security through censorship. We agree with the 17 eminent Computer Science professors represented by James Tyre and the 8 leading Cryptologists represented by Jennifer Granick that: http://cryptome.org/mpaa-v-2600-bac.htm http://www.eff.org/IP/Video/MPAA_DVD_cases/20010126_ny_crypto_amicus.html - Computer Code is Expressive Speech. - Academics and Programmers Must Have the Freedom to Communicate Fully in Code. - Source Code And Object Code Are Copyrightable And Thus Entitled To Full First Amendment Protection. - The Protection Given To Code Cannot Be Limited On Account of "Functionality". - The Encryption Research Exemption Is Insufficient - The Anti-dissemination provisions are content based - The DMCA harms rather than furthers a substantial public interest - Inventing false new rights for publishers and effectivly eliminating fair use are not "narrowly tailored" means against copyright infringement In particular, we reject the regulation of code as symbolic conduct under the "O'Brien" standard. Code is simply text, which has no conduct inherently associated with it. Code expresses functional ideas, much as a musical score does. It takes a machine and a willing human operator to turn those ideas into conduct. O'Brien was not arrested for carrying instructions on how to burn his draft card. Finally, we view with disgust the arrest of Dmitry Sklyarov, who is charged with creating tools to read encrypted books. In the middle ages the pre-reform Catholic Church persecuted scholars who tried to translate the Latin bible into the common vernacular. Today encryption has replaced Latin as the tool of choice to stifle the right to read. The protestants who founded this nation, English bible in hand, would look upon the DMCA with the same disgust that they looked upon the evils of the medieval Catholic Church. For the above reasons, we reject chapter 12 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act as unconstitutional and bad policy. We demand that Congress repeal it and that Courts strike it down. Failing the rule of law, we, the People, declare "misuse of copyright" by popular decree, and thereby revoke our grant of Copyright to those works protected by chapter 12 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act until such time as the government restores the Copyright Act to a form consistent with the Constitution and the will of the people.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
http://www.petitiononline.com/nixdmca/petition.html
Public Domain Films in Video Art
I went to a video art show today, in which the artist Boris Groys makes extensive use of clips from theatrically released feature films. The videos are basically montages of found footage, some more obscure than the rest, with the artist's voice giving a voiceover commentary. I was startled at how many different films he was able to sample, considering how much trouble and money such projects require.
(As an aside, the Moby Dick of feature film sampling is Godard's ambitious documentary "Histoire(s) du Cinema", which compiles footage from hundreds of feature films. The French TV channel Canal+ eventually went through all the trouble of negotiating those rights, at great expense-- but that was Godard, after all.)
So how did Boris Groys, an independent artist without studio backing, get so much footage from feature films? One answer is that many of the films he used are actually in the public domain. Before the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the term was only 75 years, and so any film released before 1923 should be in the public domain. I guess he had to negotiate the rights to the rest of them.
One thing I'm confused about is whether the extension act applies retroactively. Do works that were in the public domain already when the extension was signed fall back under copyright?
Mayor Bloomberg vs. Pirates. "Shiver Me Timbers!"
http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/news/mpaa_psas.shtml
I came across this article in "Metrofilm" about a recent campaign by Mayor Bloomberg to stop video piracy in NYC. The campaign includes a number of "fake" trailers that will be shown in taxi cabs and several movie theaters around the city. The trailers mimic the MPAA rating system that we all know so well. It's somewhat comical to read how the "Mayor's Office of Special Enforcement" (which could be a program for mentally challenged government employees) investigates buildings that distribute these pirated films. It sounds as if they are evacuating brothels of child prostitutes instead of eradicating the source of illegal videos.
This link shows the mock ratings systems and also lets you watch some of the fake trailers. As a side note, this weekend I watched my first ever pirated DVD: Gone Baby Gone. My boyfriend was convinced the quality would be bad since he borrowed the movie from his middle-aged neighbor, "Ray," a carpenter never to be seen without a Miller High Life in hand. (We didn't ask how Ray got access to these movies. Anyway, the picture and sound quality was great. Thus, I found it rather amusing that the mayor stressed the "poor quality of these shoddy pirated videos."
In fact, the only thing I noticed was that every 20 minutes or so, the following words would put up on the bottom of the screen: PROPERTY OF MIRAMAX FILMS, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
This amused me. Apparently, Miramax wants you to consider...that you're a bad person for illegally viewing their property?
I came across this article in "Metrofilm" about a recent campaign by Mayor Bloomberg to stop video piracy in NYC. The campaign includes a number of "fake" trailers that will be shown in taxi cabs and several movie theaters around the city. The trailers mimic the MPAA rating system that we all know so well. It's somewhat comical to read how the "Mayor's Office of Special Enforcement" (which could be a program for mentally challenged government employees) investigates buildings that distribute these pirated films. It sounds as if they are evacuating brothels of child prostitutes instead of eradicating the source of illegal videos.
This link shows the mock ratings systems and also lets you watch some of the fake trailers. As a side note, this weekend I watched my first ever pirated DVD: Gone Baby Gone. My boyfriend was convinced the quality would be bad since he borrowed the movie from his middle-aged neighbor, "Ray," a carpenter never to be seen without a Miller High Life in hand. (We didn't ask how Ray got access to these movies. Anyway, the picture and sound quality was great. Thus, I found it rather amusing that the mayor stressed the "poor quality of these shoddy pirated videos."
In fact, the only thing I noticed was that every 20 minutes or so, the following words would put up on the bottom of the screen: PROPERTY OF MIRAMAX FILMS, FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
This amused me. Apparently, Miramax wants you to consider...that you're a bad person for illegally viewing their property?
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
two new songs
so it recently clicked with me how similar these two songs sound (listen to the open set of chords leading into the songs). I tried to find out who produced the songs; it was by two different people but I did find out that they are both represented by the same record label: Sony BMG. The Afters are represented specifically by Columbia Records, but that is a division of Sony BMG anyways. Tell me what you think!
The Fray - "She Is" start listening for the notes 6 seconds in
The Afters - "Beautiful Love" start listening for the notes 10 seconds in
The Fray - "She Is" start listening for the notes 6 seconds in
The Afters - "Beautiful Love" start listening for the notes 10 seconds in
the DMCA
As we discussed the concept of "anti-circumvention laws" in class today, it got me thinking about my research for a new computer, and the exciting prospect of owning a laptop that can actually burn DVDs. But, as I realized this phenomenon -- the ability to copy a DVD -- a feature that is stressed by the iMac'ers, I came to wonder how this was even legal? And, as we discussed, dont most DVD now have anti-tampering technology to prevent consumers from doing exactly what Mac tries to sell to prospective buyers?
How does the DMCA take this allowance into account?
Portfolios
Since I am graduating in May, I am starting to look for a job. I am interested in advertising, and to be considered for a position in the creative department, I must show a portfolio of work that I have done in internships. My copyright question is what I can put in my portfolio, and what is protected? For example, ads that I worked on that were published would seem fine to use in my portfolio because they were made public, but what about ads that the client turned down for a different campaign? I still worked on the ads (oh, when I say ads I mean the copy) and they are representative of my skills as a copywriter, but are they allowed to be published in my portfolio even if they were never seen? Or, are they considered private property of the ad agency? Also, what about press releases I wrote at a public relations firm? It is a great way to show diversity in my writing abilities, but am I allowed to just show the company's press releases to any prospective employer? These are questions I am currently asking myself and people in the advertising industry so hopefully I can create a portfolio that is diverse and representative of my skills without being a lawsuit ready to happen.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Do as I say, not as I do
Logging on to NYU Home today, I was perhaps more awake or more curious than usual and saw that little link that reads "A Note on Illegal Downloading". I decided to read it, and not surprisingly the University's stance is against it;
"The University's stance on this issue is simple: downloading copyrighted material without permission is illegal, and you should not do it. You should also not use your computer to distribute copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. Be aware: some applications for downloading music, movies and other files actually turn your computer into a server, allowing it to be used for distributing copyrighted material. If you are doing illegal downloads or distributions now or have done so, you should stop."
Then I remembered Professor Sinnreich's discussion about the cost of course packets and that they were more expensive at that West Coast school than at our University because of the cost of obtaining copyright for the pieces included for comparable course packets.
Hmmmmmmm thought I! And then I read this excerpt;
"In answering those questions, the University appeals to what Abraham Lincoln once called "the better angels" of your nature and to your commitment to the culture of scholarship.
As communities of scholars and learners, research universities—such as NYU—have two primary missions: to educate students and to create knowledge. This latter mission involves the production of original scholarship and research. Accordingly it is accompanied by an enormous respect for proper recognition being given to the creator of those ideas and knowledge. In higher education, it is considered a grave act to take another's work without permission or attribution. At NYU, which also has large and renowned programs in the arts, this respect extends to the creation of new art."
While I don't like the idea of paying higher costs for school supplies, I am aware that this creates a double standard in expectations; afterall if we don't cite the work of others we would be expelled, should we expect the same standards to apply to our professors and educators? Is the school simply trying to cover its legal bases? ... Thoughts?
"The University's stance on this issue is simple: downloading copyrighted material without permission is illegal, and you should not do it. You should also not use your computer to distribute copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder. Be aware: some applications for downloading music, movies and other files actually turn your computer into a server, allowing it to be used for distributing copyrighted material. If you are doing illegal downloads or distributions now or have done so, you should stop."
Then I remembered Professor Sinnreich's discussion about the cost of course packets and that they were more expensive at that West Coast school than at our University because of the cost of obtaining copyright for the pieces included for comparable course packets.
Hmmmmmmm thought I! And then I read this excerpt;
"In answering those questions, the University appeals to what Abraham Lincoln once called "the better angels" of your nature and to your commitment to the culture of scholarship.
As communities of scholars and learners, research universities—such as NYU—have two primary missions: to educate students and to create knowledge. This latter mission involves the production of original scholarship and research. Accordingly it is accompanied by an enormous respect for proper recognition being given to the creator of those ideas and knowledge. In higher education, it is considered a grave act to take another's work without permission or attribution. At NYU, which also has large and renowned programs in the arts, this respect extends to the creation of new art."
While I don't like the idea of paying higher costs for school supplies, I am aware that this creates a double standard in expectations; afterall if we don't cite the work of others we would be expelled, should we expect the same standards to apply to our professors and educators? Is the school simply trying to cover its legal bases? ... Thoughts?
Sunday, February 17, 2008
I'm currently taking a class called "Performing Arts in Western Civilization" and we spend time discussing different art forms, how they have evolved, the impact of certain art on society, and some philosophical theory of visual art, poetry, music, etc. We had a really cool discussion the other day and while I am by no means an expert in philosophy, here's the gist of it. Our class discussed Plato and how he was searching to figure out how to deal with the shift from an "aural" culture to a "visual" culture. In pre-Socratic times, all knowledge was transfered aurally, from person to person, generation to generation, and people learned by truly "knowing" and internalizing a concept. In Plato's day, after people had started writing and recording information, more people had access to knowledge and could build upon what was previously written down. They didn't have to fully internalize knowledge because they could reference written works, therefore shifting the focus of learning from "aural" to "visual." We discussed how Plato in "The Republic" tried to theorize how to ensure success within a culture. In doing so, he came up with ideas such as how the state should educate people and how certain character traits or works of art (such as poetry) should be censored because they could provide negative models that the young people of the state would mimic. Plato tried to deal with the "tenseness" of going from the aural age to the visual age and his theories focused more on limitations than they did freedoms. I find this particularly interesting since I believe our current society is going through a similar shift. We're going from a "visual" age to a "virtual" age where almost everything can be digitalized, simulated, and transmitted at incredible speeds. It seems as if we're trying to deal with the same issues that Plato pondered. Our society is incredibly tense because no one knows what will happen next in the virtual age and certain social and cultural constructs, laws, and methods that have been established for years are suddenly becoming obselete or in need of renevation. The question is, are we going to try to be more like Plato? Will we attempt to further enforce things such as copyright law to try to ensure that what worked in the past will continue to work despite the recent and forthcoming changes? Or, are we going to try to be more like Plato's student, Aristotle, and try to come up with new ways to deal with knowledge, learning, and the way society functions in a new age?
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Boston, Huckabee, and music copyright
I saw this article on Boston songwriter Tom Scholz's objection to former band member Barry Goudreau and candidate Mike Huckabee's use of one of the band's songs, More than a Feeling, at events promoting Huckabee's campaign. According to Scholz, Goudreau and Huckabee are using the song without his permission, which prompted Scholz to write a letter to Huckabee requesting that he not use the song; he states he is a Barack Obama supporter and believes that Huckabee's use of the song implies that Scholz is endorsing him. Scholz also claims that he produced and played guitar for the track and believes that promoting Goudreau as "the guy who originally did it" is misleading. I'm not sure whether this falls under infringement, but the chairman of Huckabee's New Hampshire campaign basically dismissed the accusation.
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bostonband16feb16,0,2941293.story
And here is a link to the letter, if you want to read it:
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/02/14/more-than-a-feeling-writer-says-mike-huckabee-has-caused-him-damage/
Here is a link to the article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bostonband16feb16,0,2941293.story
And here is a link to the letter, if you want to read it:
http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2008/02/14/more-than-a-feeling-writer-says-mike-huckabee-has-caused-him-damage/
Did Marcel From ‘Top Chef’ Really Just Rip Off Wylie Dufresne?
Recipes are the "intellectual property" of the culinary world. With the emergence of the Internet and the blogosphere, recipes, restaurant reviews, and ideas can be exchanged about significant chefs and restaurants constantly, and at the blink of an eye. We don't even have to open a newspaper anymore to read a formal review, as hundreds of bloggers now conduct their own with pictures of the dishes that they critique. Because the once very personal, guarded experience of dining out and cooking has become an extremely public trend in mass culture, chefs now need more than ever to guard their recipes just as writers must do for their work in order to gain and maintain recognition, distinction and pride. I thought that this article, which talks about a Top Chef contestant who was kicked off the show after ripping off one of Wylie Dufresnie's (of wd-50 fame) signature dishes, was pertinent to our semester-long discussion of IP and where it is clear that an individual has crossed the line between what's okay and what's not okay to replicate.
Recipes are the "intellectual property" of the culinary world. With the emergence of the Internet and the blogosphere, recipes, restaurant reviews, and ideas can be exchanged about significant chefs and restaurants constantly, and at the blink of an eye. We don't even have to open a newspaper anymore to read a formal review, as hundreds of bloggers now conduct their own with pictures of the dishes that they critique. Because the once very personal, guarded experience of dining out and cooking has become an extremely public trend in mass culture, chefs now need more than ever to guard their recipes just as writers must do for their work in order to gain and maintain recognition, distinction and pride. I thought that this article, which talks about a Top Chef contestant who was kicked off the show after ripping off one of Wylie Dufresnie's (of wd-50 fame) signature dishes, was pertinent to our semester-long discussion of IP and where it is clear that an individual has crossed the line between what's okay and what's not okay to replicate.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Interesting Piracy Story
Check out this On The Media piece about a company that the MPAA hires to spam Torrent sites with fake downloads. Some high school kid hacked into their servers, copied all their correspondence and every bit of sensitive information he could get his hands on, and then uploaded the entire batch of files onto Torrent sites. The end of the OTM piece also talks about some developments in Sweden. Apparently the hacker haven is having some kind of a crackdown; the guys that run the torrent site Pirate Bay are looking at jail time. Luckily, they don't know where the servers for their site are, so nobody can actually shut the thing down.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Thoughts on DRM and HD DVD
Lessig speaks of law, markets, architecture, and norms as factors that regulate our behavior. The architecture surrounding copyrighted material, of late, has focused on DRM, or Digital Rights Management. Lessig uses Adobe Reader as an example of DRM restrictions. One is allowed to copy, print, and have the work read aloud only so far as the publisher has chosen to allow.
In my opinion, DRM is only remotely possible in network-connected situtations. Apple's "FairPlay" algorithm has stood up surprisingly well given its market penetration. Earlier versions have had a handful of vulnerabilities, but more recent versions have not.
DVD encryption, on the other hand, has been plagued with security problems from the outset. The reason is that DVD copy-protection requires static keys that are present in every device that has to play the DVD. Let me explain: the video on every DVD is encrypted in a way that requires a secret to decrypt it. Because DVDs have to be interchangeable between players, all the DVDs must be encrypted with the same secret, and the same secret has to be on every DVD player. This makes recovery of that key quite easy, as all one has to do is reverse-engineer a DVD player. This was the case with the CSS format used on standard DVDs, and also the AACS format used on HD DVDs.
The MPAA has responded to publication of encryption keys by threatening legal action under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, which makes it illegal to develop software to bypass copy protection.
In my opinion, DRM is only remotely possible in network-connected situtations. Apple's "FairPlay" algorithm has stood up surprisingly well given its market penetration. Earlier versions have had a handful of vulnerabilities, but more recent versions have not.
DVD encryption, on the other hand, has been plagued with security problems from the outset. The reason is that DVD copy-protection requires static keys that are present in every device that has to play the DVD. Let me explain: the video on every DVD is encrypted in a way that requires a secret to decrypt it. Because DVDs have to be interchangeable between players, all the DVDs must be encrypted with the same secret, and the same secret has to be on every DVD player. This makes recovery of that key quite easy, as all one has to do is reverse-engineer a DVD player. This was the case with the CSS format used on standard DVDs, and also the AACS format used on HD DVDs.
The MPAA has responded to publication of encryption keys by threatening legal action under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, which makes it illegal to develop software to bypass copy protection.
ny times articles
Here are some articles from the NY Times on tuesday that I thought were interesting.
I also received the new Radar magazine which held an article about Forever 21 (the store) and how they have been taken to court for copyright violations, etc. and how they are able to basically copy clothing they see on the runway and reproduce it cheaply but cannot be taken to court by the designers because the copies are slightly different (using different stitches, material, etc). The fabric/textile designers, however, have taken them to court numerous times for copying certain patterns/designs on the fabrics used. Anyway, I scanned the pages to put here but the files are a bit big and takes too long to upload. I tried photobucket but that also takes too long. I don't want to put a small image up because you won't be able to read the text, does anyone have a suggestion on what I can do about this? thanks!
-tracy c.
The Birth of Copyright in Renaissance Italy?
Vaidhyanathan seems to place the Birth of Copyright in England, around 1557 when a charter to the Stationers' Company was issued. I recently came upon a book that delves into an even older system of copyright: "Privilegio," which was a fully established system of protecting artist's print designs in Venice and other Italian city states by 1545. (The author claims that the system began to be formulated nearly a century before that-- basically at the time of the printing press' invention.) This system, like in England, was largely an instrument of censorship, since the Prince wanted to vet the content of books and images that were published in the city. But, as this book seems to indicate, the actual primary function of Privilegio was an economic one, and it was part of a system of patronage and favoritism within the City.
The first major economic impact of the printing press, as it was felt in Italy, seems to have been far less related to book sales than to the production of images. Right away, a thriving market in engravings blossomed in the art-crazed city-state, and artists like Albrecht Durer and Titian started making big bucks from the mass-distribution of their work that the new technology facilitated. Soon, though, bootleg copies started circulating, and the most successful, powerful, and well-connected artists were able to petition the prince for a "Privilegio" to prevent anyone else from profiting from their engraving designs.
So the first political movement towards the first copyright system was actually not about censorship, as Vaidhyanathan claims, but about successful, established producers of images using their pull to prevent losses to their large distribution enterprise. Sound familiar? I want to look more into this early Italian system, since it seems like it could be instructive in many ways-- not least of which is as an early model for the economics of image reproduction.
Vaidhyanathan orients himself exclusively within the Anglo-American legal system, and doesn't really explore this (or perhaps other, far older antecedents) to the "copyright regime" that derives from the Statute of Anne. In this case, it's the art market that first felt the impact of "mechanical reproduction", and since there were established brand-name artists already in existence, they could dictate to the government as to how to best protect their interests.
As a side note: the Italian system is based on 'Privilege', not 'Right'... how does this make it different? Can it be studied as a better, alternative model to the Angl0-American copyright system?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Fair use?
A friend of mine was recently cited on Livejournal for a copyright violation when she reposted images of a person in order to comment on their picture/makeup. Granted, making fun of people online is lame, but it had me wondering..
Is it a violation of copyright to right click and save someone's picture and then comment on it? I feel like bloggers (even us) do this every time we post a picture we didn't take.
The letter she recieved said:
Dear LiveJournal xxxxxx,
We have received a report, properly formatted under the provisions set forth by United States law, indicating that your entry located at http://community.livejournal.com/xxxx/79588.html violates the copyright of another. As such, we hereby direct you to delete that entry and cease using the material on LiveJournal as soon as possible, but no later than 12:01 AM (EST) on Monday, February 11, 2008, to avoid further action against your account.
If you feel that this report is in error or that your use of the material falls under one of the categories permitted under copyright law, you are entitled to file a counter-notification, also under the provisions of US law; please contact us for information on how to do this. Filing a counter-notification indicates that you are willing to defend yourself in court against a charge of copyright infringement, and you may be bound by civil and possibly criminal penalties if you are found liable.
Regards,
Charlotte
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team
Doesn't this fall under Fair Comment & Criticism?
Is it a violation of copyright to right click and save someone's picture and then comment on it? I feel like bloggers (even us) do this every time we post a picture we didn't take.
The letter she recieved said:
Dear LiveJournal xxxxxx,
We have received a report, properly formatted under the provisions set forth by United States law, indicating that your entry located at http://community.livejournal.com/xxxx/79588.html violates the copyright of another. As such, we hereby direct you to delete that entry and cease using the material on LiveJournal as soon as possible, but no later than 12:01 AM (EST) on Monday, February 11, 2008, to avoid further action against your account.
If you feel that this report is in error or that your use of the material falls under one of the categories permitted under copyright law, you are entitled to file a counter-notification, also under the provisions of US law; please contact us for information on how to do this. Filing a counter-notification indicates that you are willing to defend yourself in court against a charge of copyright infringement, and you may be bound by civil and possibly criminal penalties if you are found liable.
Regards,
Charlotte
LiveJournal Abuse Prevention Team
Doesn't this fall under Fair Comment & Criticism?
Yoko Ono sues "Lennon"
We talked about this in music business today.....
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/12/yoko-sues-lennon.html
Basically Yoko Ono is suing a singer/songwriter named Lennon for "tarnishing" John Lennon's Name. However, Lennon is the girl's actual birth name....
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/12/yoko-sues-lennon.html
Basically Yoko Ono is suing a singer/songwriter named Lennon for "tarnishing" John Lennon's Name. However, Lennon is the girl's actual birth name....
NYU "logo"
I am the captain of the Equestrian Team at NYU (yes, we have one). When ordering t-shirts, etc. for the team (as all teams, clubs, etc. do often), what is the protocol for having the school's name or torch on the clothes? i know many companies don't care and will put it anyway, but I believe they are supposed to get the rights from the school first and if not, it is infringement. I'm not sure what is right in this situation but thought I'd post it.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
BPI vs. ISPs
I saw this article on Billboard.com that goes hand in hand with the Grokster article we read:
ISPs Facing U.K. Piracy Legislation
The article talks about how the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) wants ISPs to take an active role in stopping people from illegally downloading music. Some suggest the following steps to be taken: 1) ISPs should warn users who are suspected of illegally downloading. 2) If the users continue to illegally download then the ISP will cut off the user's internet connection. 3) ISPs who do not follow along with this will be held responsible.
GeofF Taylor, BPI's chief executive, said the following:
"We simply want ISPs to advise customers if their account is being used to distribute music illegally, and then, if the advice is ignored, enforce their own terms and conditions about abuse of the account. But despite some agreements in principle, the ISPs refuse to do this on any meaningful scale. For years, ISPs have built a business on other people's music. Yet they have paid nothing to the creators of that music, and done little or nothing to address illegal downloading via their networks. This costs the music business hundreds of millions of pounds a year and will have serious consequences for investment in British culture in the long-term if it is allowed to continue."
ISPs Facing U.K. Piracy Legislation
The article talks about how the BPI (British Phonographic Industry) wants ISPs to take an active role in stopping people from illegally downloading music. Some suggest the following steps to be taken: 1) ISPs should warn users who are suspected of illegally downloading. 2) If the users continue to illegally download then the ISP will cut off the user's internet connection. 3) ISPs who do not follow along with this will be held responsible.
GeofF Taylor, BPI's chief executive, said the following:
"We simply want ISPs to advise customers if their account is being used to distribute music illegally, and then, if the advice is ignored, enforce their own terms and conditions about abuse of the account. But despite some agreements in principle, the ISPs refuse to do this on any meaningful scale. For years, ISPs have built a business on other people's music. Yet they have paid nothing to the creators of that music, and done little or nothing to address illegal downloading via their networks. This costs the music business hundreds of millions of pounds a year and will have serious consequences for investment in British culture in the long-term if it is allowed to continue."
In the "free culture" reading, I was shocked to read that ASCAP sued the Girl Scouts for not paying for the songs they sang around their fires. Why would ASCAP goes as far as this? Not allowing people to sing songs they hear or heard? That's basically saying that anyone who sings a song they hear on the radio or at a concert can be sued for doing so. Imagine going to concerts where you used to be able to shout/sing and dance along and not be able to do it anymore. What about all those choreographed dances many pop/rap singers have to their songs? Will people start getting sued for memorizing those and dancing along? This is all really ridiculous. People have become too obsessed with owning things and with money, it's disgusting.
I wonder, has Disney sued there cartoonists for using their characters in a parody? For example, using mickey and minnie mouse in their own cartoon but they look slightly different and are portrayed as drug addicts or something like that; has Disney sued anyone for doing this? If so, has the other person ever gone to court and showed examples of how Disney did the exact same thing (and still does)? Don't these big corporations and legal people understand that all our creativity is stemmed from prior knowledge and things we have seen and heard? Do people actually think that someone who "creates" an "idea" and claims copyright privileges on it, really came up with that idea on his/her own, out of no where? Even innovators and inventors use some existing knowledge to get to that point of creating something that has not yet been created. A baby cannot invent something 2 minutes after it was born. People have to learn things before they can come with something new and different. And even then, who really knows if what you create is really so innovative? There is probably someone across the globe somewhere that has come up with the same idea.
Monday, February 11, 2008
New Movie
I just saw a preview of a movie coming to theaters soon called "Be Kind Rewind." The basic premise of the movie is about 2 guys who run a video rental store. When all the videos are erased, they decide to remake all the movies and sell them. The film themselves doing exactly the same material as the original movies. I just think it is interested that there will be a movie with big actor names such as Jack Black where the main premise of the movie is copyrighting.
Copyrighted Characters
When I was looking through this week's issue of Time Magazine I found an ad for Pedigree Dog Food that featured a picture of a cute but terribly sad looking Pug dog placed behind a chain link fence. The headline of the ad read "Meet Otis" followed by a sad description of Otis' life in an animal shelter and how your purchase of Pedigree Dog food would help save animals in shelters etc. etc. Then I remembered my one of my favorite childhood movies entitled "Milo and Otis" which was about the adventure of a kitten named Milo and a pug puppy named Otis. I did some reading about copyright protection of fictional characters and the general rule seems to be that if a character is "fully developed" with a "distinctive personality" in the original work then the character can be protected by copyright. Now, I am wondering if this ad is an example of copyright infringement? (although I'm going to assume that Pedigree wouldn't have run the ad if it wasn't)
MTV: You're Standing on My Neck
Back in the pre-Laguna Beach era of MTV (aka TRL..not much better), MTV featured one of their greatest shows ever: Daria!!! Last year I was complaining to a friend about my inability to find the Daria seasons on DVD anywhere. He explained that this was because of all the unlicensed music that MTV used on the show. So, since we were talking about this problem this last class, I decided to further investigate and see if this was true. Alas, the lovely Wikipedia indicated that this was indeed the case. BUT MTV did say they were trying to work on possibly releasing Daria in the future....
P.S. Also, a few years ago the Canadian channel "Noggin" or something like that used to show episodes of Daria at like 2am which was momentarily amazing. Unfortunately, NYU does not supply us with Comcast cable.
P.P.S. Aram, in recently discovering you wrote songs for Daria, did MTV perhaps give you any
DVDs that I can illegally copy? It's a long shot I know....
Great show, interesting topic
One of my favorite shows on television is Boston Legal (mostly because William Shatner is a genius). In Season 3, in an episode called "Tea and Sympathy," a man is miraculously cured of HIV. The legal dispute comes in when patents get involved: the man claims he should own his own blood, but his internist had already patented it. The man wanted to use his blood to sell it to pharmaceutical companies (and of course "any book deals would be welcome"), but the doctor's argument was that selling it to one company the way the man was describing would actually stall progress, as well as make it more difficult for certain people to get access to the medications that might come out of it (since we all know how pharmaceutical companies totally work in our best interests all the time...). The doctor claimed (if I remember correctly) to have a better knowledge of how to properly develop HIV research from the man's blood (which I think included selling the patent to the government, or something of that nature).
All very interesting, and seemingly appropriate considering our guest on Thursday.
Watch it!
All very interesting, and seemingly appropriate considering our guest on Thursday.
Watch it!
A reason for copyright?
As in every Super Bowl program for the past several years, Budweiser presented its ad spot in the 2008 Giants-Pats game featuring the Clydesdales and Dalmatian, much to (most of) everyone's emotional delight. This ad was consequently voted the favorite Super Bowl ad, beating out Bridgestone's "Squirrel" ad and Audi's "Godfather" ad.
Much to my dismay, I watched the Lakers-Miami game on Sunday the 10th and came across a Miller Lite ad that used Clydesdales and Dalmatians (which jumped off the Budweiser truck to follow the Miller truck). Now this is an example of where copyright should be enforced. Whether some consider it a creative spin on Budweiser's ads, Miller's ads, in my opinion, are not nearly of the quality of Budweiser's and should not be shown. Here are links to the two ad spots:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p2mY9ZYoEZo - Budweiser
http://youtube.com/watch?v=efBSFRcdW9c- Miller
Much to my dismay, I watched the Lakers-Miami game on Sunday the 10th and came across a Miller Lite ad that used Clydesdales and Dalmatians (which jumped off the Budweiser truck to follow the Miller truck). Now this is an example of where copyright should be enforced. Whether some consider it a creative spin on Budweiser's ads, Miller's ads, in my opinion, are not nearly of the quality of Budweiser's and should not be shown. Here are links to the two ad spots:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=p2mY9ZYoEZo - Budweiser
http://youtube.com/watch?v=efBSFRcdW9c- Miller
Colleges Pushed to Crack Down on Illegal Downloading
I came across this article today:
House Approves Bill Requiring Colleges to Take Action on Online Piracy
Colleges and universities would be required to educate students regarding the illegality of unauthorized copying of protected works, implement disciplinary policies and technological measures against such activity, and offer "alternatives" to illegal downloading, under a reauthorization bill approved Feb. 7 by the House of Representatives. The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, H.R. 4137, would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §1001 et seq., Pub. L. No. 89-329, to address the soaring price of higher education. The 747-page bill was introduced Nov. 9 by Rep. George Miller III (D-Calif.) and Rep. Rubén E. Hinojosa (D-Texas) and approved by the House Education and Labor Committee on Nov. 15 (223 PTD, 11/20/07 ).
Downloading Alternatives Required
However, several new provisions in the amended Higher Education Act are directed at the unauthorized copying and sharing of musical works on computer systems operated by colleges and universities.
A new Section 494 would amend 20 U.S.C. §1088 et seq., to require institutions to "make publicly available" the schools' policies and procedures for illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials, and to "develop ... plan[s] for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as ... plan[s] to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."
The amendment also authorizes the U.S. Department of Education to offer grants for developing and disseminating such policies and plants.
The act's Section 485(a), 20 U.S.C. §1092(a)(1), would be amended to require institutions to give students notice of "the institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement," including a summary of the school's disciplinary policies regarding illegal downloading and peer-to-peer file sharing.
Similar provisions were originally included in S. 1642, the Senate's higher education reauthorization measure bill, but that language was stripped before passage in July.
Representatives of major universities have expressed concerns regarding including anti-piracy mandates in the higher education funding bill and have objected to being made "agent[s] of the entertainment industry."
A rumored amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) to prohibit sanctions against higher education institutions that do not comply with the new Section 494 mandates did not materialize. A draft of that amendment provided that those institutions could not "be denied or given reduced Federal funding for student loan or other student financial aid programs under this title because of such institution's noncompliance with the requirements of this section or any other requirement contained in this act that concerns the illegal downloading or distribution of intellectual property."
First, I'm left wondering what kind of "alternatives" could be offered. How about a university-wide collective sphere of information, where students can exchange ideas and intellectual property without having to worry about the government's long arm reaching in? That would be a great alternative. The problem is that current copyright legislation is allowing companies to have a larger say in spaces like academia and quite frankly, I find it outrageous.
House Approves Bill Requiring Colleges to Take Action on Online Piracy
Colleges and universities would be required to educate students regarding the illegality of unauthorized copying of protected works, implement disciplinary policies and technological measures against such activity, and offer "alternatives" to illegal downloading, under a reauthorization bill approved Feb. 7 by the House of Representatives. The College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2007, H.R. 4137, would amend the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §1001 et seq., Pub. L. No. 89-329, to address the soaring price of higher education. The 747-page bill was introduced Nov. 9 by Rep. George Miller III (D-Calif.) and Rep. Rubén E. Hinojosa (D-Texas) and approved by the House Education and Labor Committee on Nov. 15 (223 PTD, 11/20/07 ).
Downloading Alternatives Required
However, several new provisions in the amended Higher Education Act are directed at the unauthorized copying and sharing of musical works on computer systems operated by colleges and universities.
A new Section 494 would amend 20 U.S.C. §1088 et seq., to require institutions to "make publicly available" the schools' policies and procedures for illegal downloading and distribution of copyrighted materials, and to "develop ... plan[s] for offering alternatives to illegal downloading or peer-to-peer distribution of intellectual property as well as ... plan[s] to explore technology-based deterrents to prevent such illegal activity."
The amendment also authorizes the U.S. Department of Education to offer grants for developing and disseminating such policies and plants.
The act's Section 485(a), 20 U.S.C. §1092(a)(1), would be amended to require institutions to give students notice of "the institutional policies and sanctions related to copyright infringement," including a summary of the school's disciplinary policies regarding illegal downloading and peer-to-peer file sharing.
Similar provisions were originally included in S. 1642, the Senate's higher education reauthorization measure bill, but that language was stripped before passage in July.
Representatives of major universities have expressed concerns regarding including anti-piracy mandates in the higher education funding bill and have objected to being made "agent[s] of the entertainment industry."
A rumored amendment by Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) to prohibit sanctions against higher education institutions that do not comply with the new Section 494 mandates did not materialize. A draft of that amendment provided that those institutions could not "be denied or given reduced Federal funding for student loan or other student financial aid programs under this title because of such institution's noncompliance with the requirements of this section or any other requirement contained in this act that concerns the illegal downloading or distribution of intellectual property."
First, I'm left wondering what kind of "alternatives" could be offered. How about a university-wide collective sphere of information, where students can exchange ideas and intellectual property without having to worry about the government's long arm reaching in? That would be a great alternative. The problem is that current copyright legislation is allowing companies to have a larger say in spaces like academia and quite frankly, I find it outrageous.
Trademark?
Hello all. I "graduated from the CIA in 2001" and as you can imagine when I say it like that I get some strange looks. I began thinking of the acronym and it's implications... so I checked into the usage. Turns out that my alma mater began in 1946 while the Central Intelligence Agency was founded in 1947. So the Culinary Institute can use the "CIA" legally... for now. Will these two ever follow the WWF (World Wildlife Foundation and World Wrestling Federation) legal embroilments? Only time will tell. In the mean time I get to say "I graduated from the CIA, but if I tell you any more details I might have to silence you."
Saturday, February 9, 2008
YouTube bans "Shredder" videos, here they are
YouTube has a policy of removing videos if there are three copyright complaints, regardless of the merit of those complaints. This is what happened to the hilarious Santeri Ojala "Shredder" videos, in which terrible "Guitar Center"-esque soundtracks are dubbed to guitar god videos. YouTube didn't assert that these are clearly parodies, protected under fair use, it instead just removed them. It would be too expensive for Mr. Ojala to defend himself, so he was just going to let them go away.
Fortunately, Wired has a roundup of most of the "Shredder" videos and some of them are absolutely hilarious. I like the Eddie Van Halen one, and I love the Yngwie Malmsteen one at the end. In case Wired's flash video player doesn't work for you, here's a clip on YouTube of Mr. Ojala on Jimmy Kimmel's show, doing his bit live with Slash.
Fortunately, Wired has a roundup of most of the "Shredder" videos and some of them are absolutely hilarious. I like the Eddie Van Halen one, and I love the Yngwie Malmsteen one at the end. In case Wired's flash video player doesn't work for you, here's a clip on YouTube of Mr. Ojala on Jimmy Kimmel's show, doing his bit live with Slash.
"A Tight Grip Can Choke Creativity"
Here's an interesting article that was sent to me regarding copyright issues and Harry Potter. Do check it out! It reminds me a bit of our discussion of "Gone with the Wind" and "The Wind Done Gone" since J.K.Rowling is claiming that she basically owns and has the exclusive right to all things Harry Potter. The author also makes interesting points about fair use, the Internet, and the publication of companion intellectual property.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09nocera.html?ex=1203224400&en=86b62c8af0d41d9a&ei=5070&emc=eta1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/business/09nocera.html?ex=1203224400&en=86b62c8af0d41d9a&ei=5070&emc=eta1
Thursday, February 7, 2008
New Orleans Articles
Here is one that I found that discusses the government seizing low-income residential areas in order to create "mixed income" communities.
Grahan writes that "the Mayor and City Council are moving to seize thousands of properties and eventually hand them over developers who will renovate or build anew in those sections of the city that were hardest hit and have the fewest resources to recover"
I don't think it's exacly the gridlock example that Mr. Heller was looking for, but it was interesting nonetheless
the link is: http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~darwin/Failure%20of%20Good%20Intentions%20NOLA.pdf
I'll keep my eyes open for other examples, that's just what I've found so far.
-B
Grahan writes that "the Mayor and City Council are moving to seize thousands of properties and eventually hand them over developers who will renovate or build anew in those sections of the city that were hardest hit and have the fewest resources to recover"
I don't think it's exacly the gridlock example that Mr. Heller was looking for, but it was interesting nonetheless
the link is: http://www.uweb.ucsb.edu/~darwin/Failure%20of%20Good%20Intentions%20NOLA.pdf
I'll keep my eyes open for other examples, that's just what I've found so far.
-B
I was flipping through Nylon magazine and an ad caught my eye. It was for Dr. Martens boots and looked vaguely familiar... Clean design, simple photograph...hmm....
I posted a scan of the ad. My point was that it reminded me the Marc Jacobs ads. And I was wondering if people ever get in trouble for recreating a "look" for commercial purposes.
Rupert Murdoch...can he really control the world?
So while I am from New England and thus was actually interested in the game itself, like every other girl I also looooove watching the commercials. Except this SuperBowl Sunday, I was at a party watching the game and the boys decided the commercials were the best time to yell at each other, so I didn't get a chance to watch them all. There was a screen shot of how MySpace had a whole page just for the superbowl ads...and of course, as soon as i got home, I jumped online and watched them all.
I was thinking, though, about what the deal is with copyright contracts and other users. The game was on Fox, and the commercials were on MySpace (both owned by NewsCorp), but my guess would be that NewsCorp doesn't own the copyrights to the commercials...they simply got permission to put them on the website. But since Murdoch is a crazy guy who wants to take over the world, my guess is that he would somehow try to find a way to guarantee that only MySpace would have permission to show the commercials online. Is this legal? Is there a way to do this without the copyright owner, or is it simply a clause in the license contract?
I was thinking, though, about what the deal is with copyright contracts and other users. The game was on Fox, and the commercials were on MySpace (both owned by NewsCorp), but my guess would be that NewsCorp doesn't own the copyrights to the commercials...they simply got permission to put them on the website. But since Murdoch is a crazy guy who wants to take over the world, my guess is that he would somehow try to find a way to guarantee that only MySpace would have permission to show the commercials online. Is this legal? Is there a way to do this without the copyright owner, or is it simply a clause in the license contract?
The NFL Hates Jesus
I was walking by a bar this past Super Bowl Sunday, and noticed the NFL on FOX broadcast being played on a monstrously huge screen. The bar was huge and full of people, and they were obviously spending lots of money on food and drink at the bar, while the reason they were all there was being beamed freely, in HD, with minimal cost to the establishment. Having seen a few football games in my day, I seem to recall a disclaimer along the lines of "this copyrighted telecast is the property of the NFL. Any rebroadcast, retransmission or any other use of this telecast without the express written permission of the NFL is strictly prohibited." It seemed unlikely that this or any other bar had received written permission.
Upon some further googling, I found out that the NFL does indeed forbid any public transmission of their telecast on screens larger than 55 inches. "Sports bars," at some point, lobbied for and received an exemption to this rule, and are allowed to have as big a TV as they want as long as they don't charge admission.
I then came upon an interesting story: Churches were being targeted by the NFL for having Super Bowl parties with screens that exceeded the limit. Sports bars get to transmit the program because sports events are so good for the restaurant industry, but churches can't. What is one supposed to do if one wants to see the game with other people, but doesn't want to be surrounded by drunken heathens? Eventually, the NFL will probably back off and include churches in the exemption, since "NFL Cracks Down on God" can hardly be considered good PR.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Boyle Comic / Patriots 19-0
1.) After finishing the reading, I was impressed by Boyle and decided to search for other works of his. On Duke University’s site he has up a comic, “Bound by Law: Tales from the Public Domain”, created by him and two others. It’s like a copyright for dummies hand book. It helps break down this very complicated subject in a cute and light, but clever way. I found it fun and helpful. Also, the comic book is licensed under Creative Commons. The second page of the book has an explanation of the license. I like it, because it is written proactively as opposed to how we discussed in class that laws are currently written. Check it out! http://www.law.duke.edu/boylesite/
2.) Did you guys hear that the Patriots tried to trademark the term “19-0”? Here is a link to an article talking about it. http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/patriots-file-for-19-0-trademark/ Looks like they got a little ahead of themselves. AH HA losers! Sorry, I just don’t like Tom Shady. He’s a bad baby’s daddy. lol
2.) Did you guys hear that the Patriots tried to trademark the term “19-0”? Here is a link to an article talking about it. http://randazza.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/patriots-file-for-19-0-trademark/ Looks like they got a little ahead of themselves. AH HA losers! Sorry, I just don’t like Tom Shady. He’s a bad baby’s daddy. lol
vitamin water or propel water?
I was watching TV this evening, and noticed a very anti-Vitamin Water commercial being aired on behalf of Propel Water. Propel was claiming lower calories and higher energy, and specifically calling out (in name, and with picture) Vitamin water for the 200+ calories each bottle contains. My question was how Propel H20 even obtained the copyrights to show pictures of Vitamin Water in a negative context (seems to me that Vitamin H2O would have never agreed for its product to be shown in such a negative, unhealthy way...) ? How do "competitive" aimed commercials/Ads obtain the rights to single out other products that just simply threaten their commercial success?
New Museum
Recently I went to New Museum of Contemporary Art, which is located on Bowery. Some of the art was cool and aesthetically pleasing. Some of it looked like my old "how to be creative with egg cartons and some string" projects from elementary school.
While I was walking around the museum, several security guards repeatedly barked at people trying to take pictures of the art. I didn't think it was that big of a deal. Were they just trying to prevent people from copying the art? It's hard to imagine that anyone would actually want to duplicate any of these pieces of art (especially the elementary school type projects) and take credit for themselves.
A few years ago I went to the Louvre Museum in Paris and saw the Mona Lisa in person. People stood on a long line and waited for their turn to snap a photo of the painting. It seems silly to me that New Museum made such a big fuss about not taking photos of its.. "art" while people were allowed to snap many photos of the esteemed Mona Lisa at the Louvre. Is it just because the Mona Lisa is really old and therefore falls outside the bounds of copyright protection?
While I was walking around the museum, several security guards repeatedly barked at people trying to take pictures of the art. I didn't think it was that big of a deal. Were they just trying to prevent people from copying the art? It's hard to imagine that anyone would actually want to duplicate any of these pieces of art (especially the elementary school type projects) and take credit for themselves.
A few years ago I went to the Louvre Museum in Paris and saw the Mona Lisa in person. People stood on a long line and waited for their turn to snap a photo of the painting. It seems silly to me that New Museum made such a big fuss about not taking photos of its.. "art" while people were allowed to snap many photos of the esteemed Mona Lisa at the Louvre. Is it just because the Mona Lisa is really old and therefore falls outside the bounds of copyright protection?
RIAA asking for >$1.5M per CD copied
According to this article at Ars Technica, the RIAA is seeking an increase in statutory damages allowed under Copyright law. Although the potential damages can already total about $9000 per song, under the new "PRO-IP" act being considered before Congress.
The PRO-IP act appears to endorse and extend so-called 'thick' copyright protection--for almost everything. More information can be found here.
The PRO-IP act appears to endorse and extend so-called 'thick' copyright protection--for almost everything. More information can be found here.
How does this go undetected?
For my Spanish class I was assigned a movie entitled "Abre Los Ojos" (Open Your Eyes) to watch for class. It's the original (and much better) version of Vanilla Sky. I attempted to watch it at the library, but it was checked out. Neither Blockbuster nor Netflix had it available, and I was wary of downloading due to NYU's policy. So I googled it and came up with a convienient YouTube link.
Someone uploaded the movie in it's entirety, 12 parts!
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=androidefct
It is pretty amazing (not to mention useful on the night before it's due) that no one has found the video and taken it down. Let's hope that me posting this doesn't give light to the situation and I can finish watching it.
Someone uploaded the movie in it's entirety, 12 parts!
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=androidefct
It is pretty amazing (not to mention useful on the night before it's due) that no one has found the video and taken it down. Let's hope that me posting this doesn't give light to the situation and I can finish watching it.
Family Guy and Parody
The other night I sat down to watch an episode of Family Guy. Two things struck me in the way of intellectual property. The first was the generic FBI warning against pirating and sharing protected content. We've all seen this a million times before every movie or DVD we watch. What struck me this time was the fact that the FBI was warning against this. From my understanding, people's work should be considered a civil matter dealt with between private citizens using the law to protect their work or to share it. Why is it that the FBI intervenes when people are illegally sharing content? I don't see the theory there.
Second, during the episode I watched, Peter makes an analogy to copyright infringement. As we've come to expect from his character, he makes random connections between things that make for hilarious little vignettes. In this one, he says "That's more illegal than copyright infringement!" and then his head begins to morph into Mickey Mouse's and he turns to the camera and says, "Don't try this at home, kiddies." It got me thinking about fair use. I understand that parody use of copyrighted material can be seen as a theoretical offshoot of criticism, but I find that our society has become obsessed with satire. Once advertisers realized sarcasm made money the first time, they took it to the extreme. We are living in a satirical-self society where nothing is off-limits to make fun of. Given this, I wonder where the line is drawn then between copyright infringement and parody. What is the rationale for parody as fair use? Why can SNL use other channels' exact logo (yes, I understand that might be a trademark issue) or mimic them so closely? I would guess that fair use says something about protecting intellectual uses of copyright, but I'm wondering more about how parody is protected and why, both in the statutes and case law.
copyrights on buildings
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,525443,00.html
This article is about Egypt copyrighting the pyramids. I found it interesting that the pyramids were built thousands of years ago and that Egypt now feels that it should be illegal to make copies of them. The Statue of Liberty is copyrighted as well. Does anyone know if the people who create mini replica's of the Statue of Liberty have to pay someone to do so?
This article is about Egypt copyrighting the pyramids. I found it interesting that the pyramids were built thousands of years ago and that Egypt now feels that it should be illegal to make copies of them. The Statue of Liberty is copyrighted as well. Does anyone know if the people who create mini replica's of the Statue of Liberty have to pay someone to do so?
What's the deal with store brands?
Before I discuss my lovely cheese example above, I'm sure that everyone has noticed this trend in grocery and/or drug stores. In addition to the popular "X" brands, these stores also sell their own versions of many products. An amusing example of this I have seen was Meijer's version of Dr. Pepper soda, creatively called: "Dr. M." (To clarify, Meijer is a pretty damn good supermarket...which I've never seen outside of Michigan). Anyway, I hear that "Dr. M" and other such imitations taste basically the same, so the only reason consumers are drawn to them is for their cheaper prices.
Basically, I was wondering when this practice started. I guess it would have to be along the time when huge companies (Target, Wal-mart, Walgreen's, etc.) established a big enough name to start producing all these products?? In regard to my picture, I was trying to decided if D'agostino owned some cheese factory somewhere (like the factories owned by Krafft), or instead they just put this label on some cheese from a random place. And clearly, grocery stores and drug stores are obviously not responsible for inventing or even perfecting any of these products. Why is this necessary?! Do these companies really need to make their own brands of EVERYTHING?
This just irritates me...
Monday, February 4, 2008
Quiznos vs Subway
I came across this article in Friday's paper. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/business/media/29adco.html?ref=media
In case you don't want to read the article: Subway is suing Quiznos for a contest that Quiznos ran, challenging people to create a video that depicted Quiznos as superior to Subway. The winning entry got $10,000. This sort of consumer generated advertising is becoming increasingly popular because of its low cost for advertisers, but if Subway wins the battle in court it "could bring a quick death to these popular contests" (times article). Part of what Subway is basing their claim on is the the Lanham Act which states that "remedies can be sought when a trademark is infringed... and false or misleading statements in advertising have hurt a business" (wikipedia, please forgive the source).
After watching the videos that are still up on youtube, (search quiznos vs subway) it is easy to see why Subway is pretty ticked off. Quiznos claims that they had no control over what the contestants produced. However, because today's postmodern advertising style it you can see how the origins these commercials could be confusing for your average viewer. Its not uncommon to see an ad on TV today that looks like it was filmed with a hand held camcorder. Some of these viewer created commercials could have easily been made Quiznos, especially when you look at past commercials that the company has put out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cG042nkReBA&NR=1. I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out and the role that trademark infringement ultimately plays in this case.
Animated Humor
While watching one of my favorite shows, South Park, I thought about our conversations on the definition of art. Within that conversation, the terms creative, innovative and originality were brought into play. Shows such as South Park and Family Guy are very popular within the younger demographics, but can they really be considered artistic and credible? Within these shows, writers take from things that have already occurred and put them in their shows with a comedic twist. Shows based on guitar hero, popular music groups, or paparazzi girls are examples of what is regularly seen on these shows. The way in which the writers interpret these events can be seen as creative, but is it still considered innovative and original if the instances have already been created?
Use of movie titles in TV programs?
The other day I was watching The Young and the Restless (sad, I know, but I'll use the strike as an excuse) and two of the characters discussed going to a movie... they then listed multiple film titles, included descriptions of the films, and then decided to stay home and watch Casablanca. Viewers were able to hear the film dialogue and see part of the film. Do they need license to mention those films and play a segment of one of them on-air? I'm not sure if this falls under IP or not, but it seems that it must.
Oh, also, speaking of mash-ups in the reading, there's a great one for The Verve "Bittersweet Symphony" and Jay-Z "Dirt Off Your Shoulder." Reallyreallyreally good.
iTunes Agreement
(yikes, will I have awakened the sleeping dragon? Have I just alerted the legal-powers-that-be, at Apple by posting a blog with their trademarked name in it? Is that a safe usage under patent and copyright laws?)
I am afraid of getting caught- so I don't use alternative methods to aquire music, so like a chump I pay for iTunes. Today when I decided to download a song there was a license agreement to sign before they would let me get the song, first of all, I tried to copy and paste it to read later, but it wouldn't let me. Second I actually read the thing, and read through some of the legal speak that first of all you can not break any laws, and as for sharing; you may 'burn, rip or copy music for personal, noncommercial use'. To me this could be read into so that file sharing is allowed between persons as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. I am sure there are other clauses in the agreement that more specifically cover file sharing, but I couldn't find them with my quick reading. Is this a change in how they might be approaching user to user sharing? Is this a sign that sharing amongst individuals is becoming less of a legal concern?
I am afraid of getting caught- so I don't use alternative methods to aquire music, so like a chump I pay for iTunes. Today when I decided to download a song there was a license agreement to sign before they would let me get the song, first of all, I tried to copy and paste it to read later, but it wouldn't let me. Second I actually read the thing, and read through some of the legal speak that first of all you can not break any laws, and as for sharing; you may 'burn, rip or copy music for personal, noncommercial use'. To me this could be read into so that file sharing is allowed between persons as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. I am sure there are other clauses in the agreement that more specifically cover file sharing, but I couldn't find them with my quick reading. Is this a change in how they might be approaching user to user sharing? Is this a sign that sharing amongst individuals is becoming less of a legal concern?
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Two things:
1) My friend is trying to start a tennis club at NYU, but do to the bureaucracy that is NYU, she is unable to do so. So, she took it upon herself to contact the USTA (United States Tennis Association) to see if she could work something out with them so students at NYU could play. So, my copyright question is whether the group of students from school who play tennis in a league together can officially be called the NYU Tennis Club or not? It is not officially affiliated with NYU except that the students are comprised of NYU students, so is putting the school's name in the name of the club allowed?
2) In one of the Super Bowl commercials for Diet Pepsi Max, the people in the commercial mimic a head-nodding dance move to the song "What is Love" by Haddaway that comes directly from the movie "A Night at the Roxbury." Chris Kattan, who stars in the film, even makes an appearance at the end of the commercial. Clearly the commerical had to obtain rights to use the song, but is there an additional right to be obtained for using the head-nod that came from that movie?
Here is the commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4BuKTv35rE
2) In one of the Super Bowl commercials for Diet Pepsi Max, the people in the commercial mimic a head-nodding dance move to the song "What is Love" by Haddaway that comes directly from the movie "A Night at the Roxbury." Chris Kattan, who stars in the film, even makes an appearance at the end of the commercial. Clearly the commerical had to obtain rights to use the song, but is there an additional right to be obtained for using the head-nod that came from that movie?
Here is the commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4BuKTv35rE
Sunshine and Blue Moon
I was listening to the radio earlier today and Cream's "Sunshine of Your Love" happened to come on. The song was one of the band's biggest hits and arguably single-handedly generated popularity for the album "Disraeli Gears." An interesting anecdote about this song is that Eric Clapton quoted the song "Blue Moon" (written in 1934 by Richard Rodgers and Lorenz Hart) in his guitar solo. Although only the first few notes of the melody are used in the guitar solo, many Cream/music fans know that Clapton quoted "Blue Moon" as a juxtaposition between sunshine and the moon. Only the members of Cream are listed as writers in the liner notes for the song. I'm curious as to whether or not an infringement case has arisen from this, however, I don't think it has. While I don't think that Clapton's small quote should justify needing a license and giving credit to the writers of "Blue Moon," I think that a possible case could have been made due to the popularity of the song, the income it generated, and the fact that many fans are aware of the quote. Does anyone know if there has been legal dispute over this song?
Saturday, February 2, 2008
digital art
The first time I really thought about copyright laws and issues was a few semesters ago in my Digital Art class. The instructor warned us about using images found online to put into our work, because people have been sued over not asking permission or giving credit. I didn't know it was such a big deal, and it seemed a little silly to me that we could not use found images in our classwork, to learn (not sell).
So, I was watching Memento last night, and thought of more movie trivia that could be applied to IP laws. Turns out, Christopher Nolan's screenplay of the film was based on a short story, written by his brother Jon Nolan, called "Memento Mori." Even though the story was written before the film began production, the film is still considered an original screenplay because the story wasn't published until after the movie was completed.
There really isn't much logic behind this, save what is considered "official" under IP law. The idea of the story, regardless of being published or not, was out there and on paper before the movie was out there on film. Although I'm glad that "Memento" is considered an original screenplay, as it's a wonderful movie, I feel a lot of cognitive dissonance between what is considered right by the standards of entertainment and officiality of law and what is regarding personal standards.
The Big Game on Sunday
I've always thought it a bit funny that anybody unaffiliated with the NFL would run into legal trouble if they tried to advertise a "Super Bowl party," using those words. If I had a camera, I could've taken pictures of a number of bars today, all advertising "The Big Game" or some variant. I was going to write about that phenomenon, but in googling it, I found an even crazier story. Last year, the NFL tried to trademark the term "The Big Game," which would have forced bar owners and big-screen TV vendors to come up with a new way of describing it. Fortunately, after a public outcry, the NFL withdrew its application. There's a Forbes article by a lawyer at a prominent law firm who represented clients who would've opposed the trademark.
Friday, February 1, 2008
The "Real Book"
Both of my parents are jazz musicians, and when I think about copyright law I am always drawn back to the story about The Real Book. For anyone who doesn't know, The Real Book is a collection of the most popular jazz songs being played in the 1970's by a few musicians at Berklee. However, the transcriptions are unlicensed and no royalties were paid, so the selling of the book is highly illegal. My parents own a copy of the original volume, and they were usually only sold to friends and were kept secret in the back shelves of music stores.
The Wikipedia article actually has more details about the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Book
It is interesting to me how such an influential and helpful book could be so controversial, but at the same time, there was so much innovation happening in the music scene that it seems understandable that some credit would be needed.
The Wikipedia article actually has more details about the book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Real_Book
It is interesting to me how such an influential and helpful book could be so controversial, but at the same time, there was so much innovation happening in the music scene that it seems understandable that some credit would be needed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
