Spaceballs the movie

I had the opportunity to watch Spaceballs recently and I was struck by how many references, puns, parodies and the like were in the movie. I was curious about how Mel Brooks got away with so many of the references to various films especially the Star Wars films, I found some information on Wikipedia which noted that Brooks had Lucas' blessing for the film, but I wonder in light of copyright laws today if the same film could have been produced in 2008...

an excerpt from Wikipedia (photo from both Wikipedia and IMDB would not copy and paste here)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Spaceballs is a 1987 science fiction parody film co-written, directed by, and starring Mel Brooks. It was released on June 24, 1987, and earned only modest returns, but it has gone on to become a cult classic on video.
Its plot and characters contain numerous parodies of elements from the original Star Wars trilogy and Star Trek in particular, as well as other popular science fiction films. The script was written by Mel Brooks in only six months, and was approved by George Lucas, as he was a big fan of Brooks's previous films.[1] Lucas' Industrial Light & Magic was also involved in the special visual effects for the film. As of 2007, an animated sequel TV series is in preparation.

Nickelodeon gets in on the mash-up fun

So I was watching TV last week and wasn't quite paying attention, but half-saw a commercial for the 2008 Nickelodeon Kids' Choice Awards hosted by Jack Black. After realizing that Nickelodeon (while fantastic) is not my general genre of programming, I looked away. But very quickly at the bottom of the screen I saw a line that said "To mash up this video, go to..." and then they gave a website. By the time I noticed it, the commercial was over and I couldn't get the website. I tried Googling it and going to the Kids' Choice Awards website, but couldn't find it. I still thought it was worth mentioning here, though, because I found it interesting that Viacom would allow a "legal" mash up of their own content, but when it comes to including any other content it is not allowed. They're also encouraging kids to do this - teaching them to be creative, but only with what they're given, not what they can find. It's almost as if they're indoctrinating kids to think and conceptualize things based on legal categories instead of a free and open world from which they can draw creativity. Give them an inch, and for the rest of their lives they'll only know about that inch. I just find it all a bit disturbing.

Master Chief on PS3

Recently Business Week did an article about user-generated content, and its tendency to resemble familiar, trademarked characters. Particularly, the article discussed the creation of a character (left) on the PS3's Unreal Tournament 3 game, and the Master Chief character (right) from the Xbox 360 exclusive Halo series. If you look carefully, you might notice the resemblance.

This is something of an unremarkable story, except that Microsoft's refreshing response: a Microsoft blogger said that not only does the company not have a problem with the fan art showing up on a different platform, but in fact explicitly allows it in their Game Content Usage Rules, a set of guidelines initially created to explain the rights and obligations of machinima creators.

That support represents a surprisingly reasonable position: there IS some value added from Master Chief's presence in UT3, but Microsoft also gets the value of advertising and cultivating a fan culture, and doesn't need to be monetarily compensated.

Amazon's Music Service Fights Apple's DRM Scheme, Becomes Major Player

Amazon.com's music service has benefitted from two types of people hating on Apple: consumers that are sick of "FairPlay", their annoying proprietary DRM scheme, and record labels that are wary of Apple being the only player in online distribution. While Apple has been promising to sell more and more DRM-free music on their site, Amazon has actually done so, offering their entire catalog (4.5 mil. songs) without DRM, while apple only offers 2 million DRM-free songs out of their 6 mil. total. (As an aside: Apple is only the #2 retailer of music in the world. WalMart is top.)

Major labels Warner, Sony/BMG, and Universal all sold their tracks DRM-free to Amazon, rather than Apple, because they wanted some competition in the online music biz. But what will be the cost if record labels give up DRM completely? 99 cents per DRM-free song seems like a viable business model, because it's relatively cheap and the ease of purchasing that is provided by a well-run, comprehensive online store is valuable in itself. But what about TV shows? They sell for more money per "track", and thus there is more of an incentive for whoever pays for a DRM-free download to simply share that on a torrent tracker site. I might not want to pay $5 for the benefit of a nice, easy shopping experience, when the torrent tracker experience is almost as good, and free. 

 

Has this ever happened?

Earlier this evening, I thoughtlessly logged onto AIM and glanced at my buddy list to see who was online. At that moment, I realized that some of my online acquaintences have screennames that include references to sports teams, bands, songs, and other random things. I began to wonder if there were ever "cease and desist" notices sent or law suits over the use of a trademark as an email address or screenname. For instance, if someone was known as "alexdangerpowers" (as a reference to Austen Powers), "jakehatesmcdonalds," or "falloutboyfan1234" would they be violating trademark in anyway? Furthermore, are screennames or email addresses copyrightable? In the case that they are copyrightable, is it possible that someone may have created screenname "ABCDEFG" and, at some point in time, a company called "ABCDEFG" starts up and uses the name without knowingly infringing on a copyright? If screenname "ABCDEFG" finds out about the company, opposes the use of the name, and decides to act on it, would they have a case? If anyone has heard about anything like this ever happening I'd be interested in learning about it.

New Legislation and Live Football?

I came across this article today.

A new bill was introduced in Congress to give nonprofit organizations the right to copy live football games. My intrigue is less about the actual bill (I guess it makes sense) and more about the very idea of it. It is not the most ridiculous thing that Congress has to enact a bill giving a nonprofit the right to distribute a part of our culture? Is this not the best evidence for a backwards system of law and logic? I think this is the best example of a copyright system that guarantees far too much protection for the author.

photos at concerts

I've been to a couple concerts recently and I always wonder whether or not I am allowed to take pictures. Sometimes artists' websites say that they allow their fans to take photos with (nonprofessional) cameras. Sometimes the venue doesn't allow cameras at all. I could understand why the artist might not want photos or videos taken at a concert; although I do think that they are helpful in building a fan base. However, I don't understand why a venue wouldn't want people to take pictures. Do they have specific rights to use the images of artists? Would the artist own the picture of themselves? Would the venue? Or would the photographer?

Forgery...A Copyright Violation?

    I recently watched The Thomas Crown Affair. The heist film focuses on stealing original artwork, but it also touches on art forgery. I feel that forgery is an interesting concept in that it differs slightly from plagiarism. Thus, I am not sure if this would be considered an infringement of an artist's copyright over their paintings- especially since most of the artists who are imitated are long deceased. For instance, the creator of a forged work does not claim to produce an original work, instead they assume the identity of the original artist in order to profit off their success. This seems to blend copyright violation along with identity theft. I wonder what the legal consequences are for art forgery. In the film, we see a very talented forger who has been in prison for several years. This issue is further complicated because it is not just the actual forgers that are subject to legal action. The people that knowingly buy and sell forged artwork hoping to make a profit "with the intent to deceive" are also committing a crime. 

In Which I Out Myself as a Complete and Utter Nerd. (Again.)

I very, very nearly applied to NYU as a physics major. The trouble is, I test very poorly in physics. When I got my Physics C/Mechanics score back, I decided that I'd better study something else in college or else I'd be subjecting myself to all manner of hell, so here I am.
In December, I discovered the wonderment of MIT's OpenCourseWare. MIT posts video lectures from a vast selection of its courses online for free usage, under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike license, allowing users to download, copy, redistribute, and republish the work as they see fit. They're quite clear that OCW isn't an MIT education; one doesn't have the ability to ask faculty questions, one doesn't get a degree, and so on. Still, if you have a passing interest in anything from Aeronautics to Writing, you can't beat an entire series of free MIT lectures. And if you have any interest in physics, I highly recommend Walter Lewin's lectures, they're outstanding.

Rights and Restaurants

Over break I had dinner with a family-friend of mine who owns a restaurant/bar in Philadelphia and, believe it or not, we started discussing copyright and the need for his establishment to have licenses from ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC. Although I tried to explain to him how PROs work, why places like restaurants need a license for a "public performance" of music, and why he needs licenses from all three, he clearly resented the fact that he had to fork money over to multiple organizations. He asked me (more than once) "Why do there have to be three seperate organizations... don't they all do the same thing? And wouldn't it be easier if people only had to get licenses from one organization?" So that made me wonder... why, exactly, are there three different PROs? And wouldn't it make more sense if there were one giant PRO that everyone got a license from and that all performers associated with? Would there be a larger pool of money from which artists could get paid? Could they develop a better system of monitoring and keeping track of what music gets performed? Would it decrease the animosity that people, like my friend, have towards the various organizations since there would only be one group that they would have to pay?

So, I really, really like to cook...and most of my resources are blogs all over the Internet. I was looking up a recipe for something to make over Spring Break for a dinner party, and lo and behold, one of my choice food bloggers proclaimed that she had experienced blog content theft. (Read more here) Many other bloggers posted, reporting similar experiences of content being stolen from their blogs and passed off as another's. However, if these individuals let such instances get to them, I'd think that they'd have stopped blogging long ago. Are frequent Internet users more flexible about protecting their own IP than traditional, print-centric cultural producers?

For Bands, Songs Remain the Same

On March 19th there was a New York Times article entitled "For Bands, Songs Remain the Same" about the music played by pep bands during the NCAA Tournaments. Author, John Branch, writes about the predictable collection of older music that is played during any down time and makes an argument that this is partly due to to current copyright law. Branch goes on to explain how the bands have to go out and get the rights for songs from ASCAP and BMI and the approximate cost of each song. I am surprised that this is the case. Since these songs are being performed as public performances shouldn't they be covered under some kind of blanket licensing in the arenas that the games are played in?

Here is a link to the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/sports/ncaabasketball/19bands.html?scp=7&sq=copyright&st=nyt

Music and Social Networking Sites

This article in the New York Times discusses yet another controversy of music (and other information posted by the user to his or her site) in reference to social networking sites and the dilemma of who owns the rights to that information once the site goes public...
What to do when all of a sudden a site starts making money from once free/user compiled material?

The Royalty Scam

By BILLY BRAGG
Published: March 22, 2008
Dorset, England

Todd St. John

LAST week at South by Southwest, the rock music conference held every year in Austin, Tex., the talk in hotel lobbies, coffeeshops and the convention center was dominated by one issue: how do musicians make a living in the age of the Internet? It’s a problem our industry has struggled with in the wake of the rising popularity of sharing mp3 music files.
Our discussions were brought into sharp relief when news reached Austin of the sale of Bebo.com to AOL for a staggering $850 million. Bebo is a social-networking site whose membership has risen to 40 million in just two years. In Britain, it ranks with MySpace and Facebook in popularity, although its users tend to come from a younger age group.
Estimates suggested that the founder, Michael Birch (along with his wife and co-founder, Xochi), walked away with $600 million for his 70 percent stake in the company.
I heard the news with a particular piquancy, as Mr. Birch has cited me as an influence in Bebo’s attitude toward artists. He got in touch two years ago after I took MySpace to task over its proprietary rights clause. I was concerned that the site was harvesting residual rights from original songs posted there by unsigned musicians. As a result of my complaints, MySpace changed its terms and conditions to state clearly that all rights to material appearing on the site remain with the originator.
A few weeks later, Mr. Birch came to see me at my home. He was hoping to expand his business by hosting music and wanted my advice on how to construct an artist-centered environment where musicians could post original songs without fear of losing control over their work. Following our talks, Mr. Birch told the press that he wanted Bebo to be a site that worked for artists and held their interests first and foremost.
In our discussions, we largely ignored the elephant in the room: the issue of whether he ought to consider paying some kind of royalties to the artists. After all, wasn’t he using their music to draw members — and advertising — to his business? Social-networking sites like Bebo argue that they have no money to distribute — their value is their membership. Well, last week Michael Birch realized the value of his membership. I’m sure he’ll be rewarding those technicians and accountants who helped him achieve this success. Perhaps he should also consider the contribution of his artists.
The musicians who posted their work on Bebo.com are no different from investors in a start-up enterprise. Their investment is the content provided for free while the site has no liquid assets. Now that the business has reaped huge benefits, surely they deserve a dividend.
What’s at stake here is more than just the morality of the market. The huge social networking sites that seek to use music as free content are as much to blame for the malaise currently affecting the industry as the music lover who downloads songs for free. Both the corporations and the kids, it seems, want the use of our music without having to pay for it.
The claim that sites such as MySpace and Bebo are doing us a favor by promoting our work is disingenuous. Radio stations also promote our work, but they pay us a royalty that recognizes our contribution to their business. Why should that not apply to the Internet, too?
Technology is advancing far too quickly for the old safeguards of intellectual property rights to keep up, and while we wait for the technical fixes to emerge, those of us who want to explore the opportunities the Internet offers need to establish a set of ground rules that give us the power to decide how our music is exploited and by whom.
We need to do this not for the established artists who already have lawyers, managers and careers, but for the fledgling songwriters and musicians posting original material onto the Web tonight. The first legal agreement that they enter into as artists will occur when they click to accept the terms and conditions of the site that will host their music. Worryingly, no one is looking out for them.
If young musicians are to have a chance of enjoying a fruitful career, then we need to establish the principle of artists’ rights throughout the Internet — and we need to do it now.
Billy Bragg is a songwriter and author.

D is for Disney

I spent some time in Connecticut with a friend over break, and we drove by a new store called "Dino's Auto Spa" When we drove by, however, I thought it was a Disney store because of the curly font of the D. When I said that to my friend she said she had thought the same thing when she first drove by and we then got into a IP lawsuits and this class because Disney could definitely sue them. Since I don't have a picture of the store, I put a picture of the traditional "Disney" logo with the curly "D"

The End of the History Channel

Not sure how many heard about this, but apparently the History Channel is no longer in existence. The History Channel is now known simply as "History." You have to wonder after all of our readings how they were able to do this. Does this mean there is now a copyright on the word "history"? If we use the word "history" in our daily discussions, are we infringing on this channel's rights? If anyone is interested in reading more on this, below is an article on the channel's switch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23726301/

Jack Black.. Be Kind, Rewind... and Copyright Infringement

I just returned home from seeing Jack Black's new movie, "Be Kind, Rewind," and while it was no "High Fidelity" success (that is one of my favorite movies, after all) it did seem to so perfectly encapsulate the dilemma of copyright.. and just how easy it is to be sued for infringement even if one's "re-adaptation" is nothing like the original. In this movie, due to Jack Black's magnetized body (yes, its a long story..), Jack and Mos Def have to re-film all of the classic Hollywood movies in their boss' store, before he returns back from vacation. The entire movie is them re-making 20 minute versions of their favorite films, King Kong, Rush Hour 2, The Lion King, Driving Miss Daisy, etc... yes, with them starring as Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker themselves. The movie is a very sweet, low-budget ode to the power of the film and to jazz music, but just before its over, several production companies come storming into their little movie store, claiming that they owe billions of dollars in fines for infringing on such highly privatized "stories." 

How much more of a social commentary can a movie be when Sigourney Weaver herself storms into a scene and smashes every single film made by Jack and Mos in favor of strict copyright ownership? 

Here we go with fashion again...

I came across this article in today's NY Times called "When Imitation's Unflattering."  It basically updates the ongoing intellectual property battles within the fashion industry.  But quite frankly, we have to decide the very nature of fashion before we can decide who is infringing.  If fashion, at its core, is stealing of ideas, then great.  But lay off the litigation, then.  Yes, if someone blatantly steals an idea for a dress, people will be pissed, but wouldn't creating a new dress in response be better off for the industry anyway?  If the problem is that people are trying to profit off of everyone else's ideas, then why not leave the enforcement to the industry itself.  Self-regulation? I think so.  Humiliation for a lack of creativity should be enough to solve this problem in such an ever-changing industry.

Harry Potter Copyright.

J.K. Rowling has decided to stop the makers of the Harry Potter Lexicon (http://www.hp-lexicon.org) from publishing the contents of it's websites in a book. Although she had announced that she would be making an encyclopedia of the world in the future, the webmakers intended to publish it sooner.

Although she's been very lenient with things such as fan fiction, drawing and representations involving her characters she is drawing the line here, and for the first time in class I think I do agree. This might take revenue away from her encyclopedia - though I doubt it. I don't, however, believe she can stop them from publishing original content and theories based on her characters. I looked at the web page and there are many user-submitted speculations, essays and explanations for things unexplained in her books. If the "debunking Harry Potter" type books can be published, why can't these?

With her new film and book coming out, there's been a lot of talk of a fan backlash toward her. Maybe this is old news but I'd just heard about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080229/ap_en_ce/harry_potter_lawsuit

oh, medication

Yesterday I was picking up my two usual prescriptions when I realized that I do not purchase the original copyrighted prescription -- but rather then generic form that my insurance covers. Out of curiosity, I found the ingredients listings for both the original and the generic forms of my medications, and discovered that they were exactly the same!
How could this be? With the time constraints on patenting a medical formula, I cant imagine that my medicine has been out in production for enough time to warrant it another patenter?
How do generic medications work exactly with copyright/patent laws?

copyright on everything

while doing a little spring cleaning, I noticed that there was a funny copyright on the package and package design of my new duane reade shower curtain. tell me its not funny when a dumb little $2.50 shower curtain package could get you in trouble for copyright infringement?? =)

David Ryan Harris

I recently saw David Ryan Harris perform at Highline Ballroom. During his song "Pretty Girl", he mixed in a bunch of other songs including "Your Body is a Wonderland" and "I Want You to Want Me". I enjoyed being surprised with each new song that he mixed in. I found a video of him performing this song in Georgia last September.

see the video here.

I think he only includes those songs in his live performances and not on his CD. I wonder how much he would have had to pay for a license to use those song clips. I think this is a great example of how one artist can borrow another artist's work without detracting from the original. Listen to the song in the video. There's no way that someone would decide to not buy Alicia Keys' album because they heard a clip of "No One" in DRH's song. If anything, hearing that clip would probably spark interest in the original song and would benefit Alicia Keys.

Nine Inch Nails

Today I came across a March 4th New York Times Article entitled, "Nine Inch Nails Fashions Innovative Web Pricing Plan," by Jeff Leeds. Nine inch Nails has decided to try new distribution methods for their latest album that utilizes online distribution methods instead of trying to fight the tide and rely solely on conventional CD (or iTunes) distribution systems. They even went so far as to upload some of their tracks onto various unauthorized file-sharing networks. The first 9 of the 36 tracks are available for free via the bands website. After that fans have the option of paying for various versions of the album ranging from $5 to $300 for a deluxe version complete with the band's signature. Nine Inch Nails also decided to release this album with a Creative Commons license.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/arts/music/04nine.html?scp=9&sq=copyright&st=nyt

Marine video

I don't know how many people saw or heard about the disturbing video that was circulating nearly a week ago of a Marine throwing a puppy off of a cliff, but there were multiple comments on YouTube's continuous removal of the video from its site throughout the day. At one point, the video was labeled and tagged "John McCain's Speech" in an attempt to keep the site from removing it. Though I wish I had not seen/heard about it, I have to wonder what gives the site authorization to remove this video given the fact that it isn't, to my knowledge, copyrighted content.

My new computer!

I just got the new MacBook Pro and was playing around with iWeb, the web design program installed on the machine. I was trying to publish something to the web to see if it worked, and a message popped up that reminded me of class. It said "Before publishing, make sure you own the copyrights and other rights to all materials you publish or that you obtained all necessary permissions." What I found funny is that you can click "Don't show this again" to avoid the message in the future. It is a way for the program to say the legal rules without being overbearing and deterring people from using it.

eisner on what makes america great

http://valleywag.com/366558/ex+disney-ceo-michael-eisner-on-what-makes-america-great

Thrillercast

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anLqu77uTH0

This is somewhat channeling Katie's post with the Godfather commercial from the Superbowl, except it isn't really a parody. Anyway, this is the popular Sobe commercial that features Naomi Campbell and a bunch of lizards dancing to Michael Jackson's "Thriller." Obviously Michael Jackson "signed on" to allow Sobe to use his song in the commercial....

It seems that Michael is very open to fans freely accessing his music-as long as he is involved in the process. In light of the 25th anniversary of Thriller, fans can now visit the "Thrillercast" website. This  is described as a groundbreaking 40-episode podcast event." It is available free through several podcast providers and on michaeljackson.com. The site also invites fans to "star in their own Thriller video" and broadcast it on Youtube. I thought this was an interesting way to embrace fan culture while making sure to advertise on the 25th anniversary of Thriller.

http://www.michaeljackson.com/home

passiveaggressivenotes.com

I read this blog, passiveaggressivenotes.com, that posts funny notes that people find at their workplace, or in their shared apartments. I went to their submission page the other day and found the box that you have to check in order to submit a note you find. It states "i get that by submitting photos or scans to passiveaggressivenotes.com i grant passiveaggressivenotes.com a permanent royalty-free license to use and/or reproduce those photos/scans for any purpose." I thought this was interesting since the authors of these notes aren't the people submitting them. I wonder if they could get in trouble for this. Technically things are copyrighted when they are fixed in a tangible medium. With that in mind you'd think that the site would need to get the permission of the actual author to post the notes/emails.

Pirated Ferrari: Posterchild of Globalization

As third-world countries catch up with the industrialized West in manufacturing capacity, the one thing they still lack is the valuable brand-related IP that America, Japan, Italy, France, Germany and England make such huge profits from. A Thai businessman might be able to build a car factory, but he won't be able to break into an international market with an upstart Thai car brand. That's why there can be such a thing as a pirated Ferrari. This gap between the capacity to produce and the intellectual capital needed to be successful, high-end producers is probably the biggest economic issue facing China. The question is, will new brands emerge from the developing world, or will the industrialized powers maintain their grip on all that is valuable in the realm of IP. If the latter is the case, the problem of pirated goods will be a huge and ever-growing one. 

Godfather Link

Sorry, here is the link I was talking about:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x0tw9wOB4

The Godfather

This is a commercial from the Superbowl that I am sure most of you have seen:

I believe this brings up the point of parody vs. satire and how it is a fine line that is very fuzzy. 

YouTube Troubles

I'm on the undergraduate mock trial team and we recently ran into some legal problems unlike the criminal law we're used to litigating.  One of the members on the team posted videos on his YouTube account of a legendary mock trial a couple years ago at the National tournament for us all to watch.  Here's the link to the videos, if you're interested in watching some amazing mock trial.  He sent us all an e-mail telling us to watch the videos.  A couple days later he sent another e-mailing saying it was our last chance to view them since he'd been contacted to take them down because they're copyrighted material.  Now, they haven't yet been taken down because the person who contacted him was not YouTube but someone from one of the mock trial teams.

I think this is a classic example of how the "chilling effect" really takes hold.  Although I'm not sure about whether this is actually someone's copyrighted material because I don't know who took the footage originally, this really shows how people who think they have control over content can send threatening letters to people regardless of whether they are actually right.  This, I see, is a major flaw with copyright law.  Scaring people into submission about using content that may not even be actually copyrighted poses a major threat the quality of cultural production if people automatically shy away from using other people's content just because they were sent a threatening letter.  It's really not fair.

Harvard Publications Free and Open

I did my take-home exam on this issue and I thought I'd share it.

Here's the link to the article.  It's about Harvard recently voting to publish all of its scholarly articles in an open, free online repository instead of having their faculty have to publish them in journals that make them abdicate their copyrights to their work.

So apparently, this week (March 10-14) is National Copyright Awareness Week. According to the Copyright Society of the USA site, teachers across the country are urged to modify their lesson plans to include lessons about the importance of trademark and copyright laws in our country and why they should be known about and followed. Teachers are even urged to contact the CSUSA office and tell the society what exactly they taught their class. The material is even provided for them on the site under "Teacher Curriculum Materials," with articles featuring titles like: 

"Define the Line/A Curriculum for College Students"

"College Anti-Piracy Video Contest"

"Download Legal"

and there's even separate sections with material for elementary school, middle school, high school and college. Talk about being fed information from the government in school! Where's the debate? This "awareness week" is just a government instituted event to propagate the same chilling effect that is always produced from the murky territory of the law.

Read more about it here: http://www.csusa.org/caw/caw_2006_home.htm

YouTube troubles anticipated

I was searching the web for copyright cases and found this article about how Google anticipates copyright infringement cases and has set aside money to deal with the litigation fees. Yikes!!!! Some of the links are no longer valid, I guess that Google isn't proud of what it fears may lie in YouTube's future...

"What Eric Schmidt Meant When He Said Google Wasn't Holding $500 Million From YouTube For Lawsuits: We're Holding $200 Million"
from the semantics dept
Remember the rumor, kicked off by Mark Cuban, that Google was holding back $500 million from YouTube in escrow to deal with potential copyright infringement lawsuits? Yes, the same claim that Google CEO Eric Schmidt clearly denied was true last week. Well, it seems that when he called it false, it appears he only meant the number, not the concept. Today it came out that Google has actually put aside a little over $200 million in an escrow account, almost exactly as the original email Mark Cuban posted described. It's to handle potential legal costs associated with copyright lawsuits. While it's not nearly as much of the deal as originally suggested, it still is a significant chunk. There's a second interesting tidbit in the article as well. While some had suggested that YouTube actually has been profitable, apparently, the company was so hard up for money, it needed to borrow $15 million between the time the deal was announced just over a month ago and its closing of the deal yesterday.

http://techdirt.com/articles/20061114/185341.shtml

I may need a new best friend

My best friend just called me up to inform me about her weekend plans. She is apart of an international student business association at another university called Students in Free Enterprise (SIFE). This weekend she will be filming an anti-piracy commercial to enter into the third annual anti-piracy public service announcement contest. This contest is sponsored by the MPAA, SIFE, and mtvU and only accepts college student entries. The top three winners of the contest receive cash prizes and their PSA will be run on mtvU.

I was completely shocked when she told me about this so I went to find out more about the contest myself. I found a press release that highlights how important it is to “educate young people across the country about the importance of protecting copyrights and the damaging impact of film theft.” The MPAA decided to plug this PSA on mtvU since it is the “most comprehensive TV network specifically for college students…regularly featuring student produced content focused on…. pro-social initiatives”

I think it’s pretty ironic that this contest is sponsored by an organization call Students in Free Enterprise. The senior VP of SIFE is quoted in the press release as saying how “The contest is a perfect fit with SIFE- it channels the creativity and energy of the SIFE students to help facilitate a solution and educate others to a real world economic concern.”

Its peculiar that the VP of this organization is citing how this project “promotes creativity” when the MPAA’s anti-piracy campaign does just the opposite, stifle creativity. The MPAA is using very creative techniques to help change students attitudes and beliefs about piracy, which is fine and I think it is important to have some forms of copyright protection. However, I think the larger problem is that the pro-piracy campaign is not vocal enough compared to the anti-piracy campaign. Personally, I had never even thought about the topics surrounding piracy before taking this class and I think that is problematic, as a college student who is a prime target of the MPAA’s Public service campaigns. If I was not taking this class I would still have many of the one sided beliefs about copyright protection that are being propagated by the MPAA, the music industry and the like. I think if my friend was aware of the full picture of copyright protection then she would have thought twice about participating in this contest.

I sent my friend a link to steal this film and I hope she watches it before she goes to film her PSA tomorrow. (I also hope she films in the woods or something so that theres no copyrighted work in their production). I also asked her to send me their final PSA so it may be up on the blog sometime soon.

By the way…if anyone is interested the deadline for entries is March 15.

Link to the Press Release
http://mpaa.org/press_releases/antipiracy%20psa%20contest%2010.31.07.pdf.

Public Records Cost 8 Cents per page?

So while I was writing the paper for this class, I came across the actual court filing text of the lawsuit I was discussing (lucky me!). Someone had been kind enough to scan in the actual pages of the document and post them to their website so all could see. While this was incredibly useful to me in writing the paper, finding the respondent's filing for dismissal was not so easy to find. In doing some research, I found that most of the federal courts in the US use an online system for posting court filings (which are a matter of public record most of the time). Had I had the time and energy, I could have gone directly to the Southern District Court of New York and gotten paper copies myself. But this system, PACER, charges $0.08 per page for any court records in its database. Every time I have used court records as research material, someone has been kind enough (as in this case) to post the actual filing to their website, for zero access cost. This whole thing makes me wonder if this scanning and posting of court records is actually legal - when one gets a paper copy, are they restricted from redistributing? Must they have it only for their own personal use? Or have I been so jaded by the entire copyright headache that I have begun to assume that things that actually are legal are illegal?

Scrabulous vs Mattel and Hasbro

Mattel and Hasbro, are rather unhappy with the development of the facebook application Scrabulous. An article in The New York Times from this past Sunday sited how the companies “denounced Scrabulous as piracy and threatened legal action against its creators,” two brothers in their 20s. Mattel and Hasbro also said that they hoped for a solution that would not cause the game to be shut down, I guess just have someone pay for it and keep them in control of production. Reactions to the threat of legal action can be seen by the variations of “Save Scrabulous” groups that have been created on facebook. The general consensus seems to be that Mattel and Hasbro’s reaction was “heavy handed.”

I think the main point is that many industries just don’t get it, they simply aren’t in total control of production anymore. As the film we watched in class on Tuesday illustrated people are going to share and communicate via the Internet. The technology is out there and creative people are pushing boundaries in order to utilize it in new ways. Mattel and Hasbro’s “heavy handed” reaction will create a chilling effect on creativity, which benefits no one. As the CREEPY Sebastian guy from “Steal this film” pointed out former consumers are becoming producers and that scares the heck out of those who were in control of production.

I am curious of what facebook’s reaction will be in this situation. Should the creators of the Scrabulous refuse to take down the game can Mattel or Hasbro go after facebook for providing a location for this game to be hosted? If the corporations do seek go to go after the creators what does that mean for the future of facebook applications? Will I still be able to take a Quiz to find out what Disney princess I am????

Here is a link to the NYT article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02game.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=copyright&st=nyt&oref=slogin

Scrabulous

There was an article in the Washington Post that talks about how the creators of Scrabble are upset at the Facebook application called Scrabulous because it is just like the game but they aren't receiving any money for it. I had actually thought of this when I first saw the application and I'm curious as to what is going to happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603632.html

Project Gutenberg

In my History of Comm. class we are currently discussing the impact of the printing press on every facet of life. Basically, the ability of this mass reproduction allowed for the dissemination of information and spread of knowledge. Since this was also discussed in Steal This Film, needless to say, the topic was on my mind. While perusing the internet for more information, I came across Project Gutenberg.

Project Gutenberg, founded in 1971 by Michael Hart, is the "first and largest single collection of eBooks." I found it ironic that this collection of eBooks was named after Johannes Gutenberg, since the ability to read books online essentially eliminates the need for the printing press! Anyway, I figured it is more about the revolutionary concept of Gutenberg's printing press. (i.e. the internet has also made a profound effect on communication and society)


http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Gutenberg:About

Question:

How is it that facebook applications such as "Audio" were taken down becuase of copyright infringement, but Project Playlist has not?

From my understanding, project playlist searches out mp3 files hosted at other websites and then streams them through their player... I don't understand how that does not require them to pay royalties also? Or maybe it has just slipped through the cracks?

Either way, I hope it doesn't get shut down next. =/

Sly and Slim

While shuffling through my iTunes library yesterday, I realized that the opening/reoccuring horn line from a Sly and the Family Stone song, "Into My Own Thing," was used in Fatboy Slim's hit "Weapon of Choice." I checked allmusic.com and saw that Stone wasn't listed as one of the writers, however, the wikipedia articles for Sly's album "Life" that features the song "Into My Own Thing" as well as the article for "Weapon of Choice" both state that Slim sampled Sly. I don't have the actual liner notes from the Fatboy Slim album but I'd hope that Wikipedia is correct and that the work was properly and legally sampled. I know that many musicians are adamantly against sampling music, however, I think it's pretty cool that modern artists can make music by lifting small elements from songs of the past. I think that sampling not only pays homage to the artists of the past, but the sample can be used to re-introduce older music into popular culture... as long as it's licensed. I don't know how to put the mp3's of the songs up here, but if you youtube the two songs, perhaps you can find them?

Todd Haynes and Barbie Dolls

I remembered after reading the section in Bollier's book about Barbie Dolls how last semester I took a film class from Tisch that was all about Andy Warhol and the two directors that were most influenced by him: Todd Haynes and Gus Van Sant. Todd Haynes made this film called Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story, which was all about her struggle with anorexia and bulemia, and her subsequent death. The film was a small art house hit, but soon it was banned, partly because of the use of Barbie Dolls to represent the characters and the unlicenced use of the Carpenters music. Todd Haynes promised to only show it for educational and clinical uses, but Karen's brother had the whole film squashed. It is an amazing film, and there are a few illegal bootleg copies that are kinda dark floating around. I found it on YouTube in three parts, I really hope everyone watches it!! (im not sure if all of the film is there in the clips....it should be about 30ish minutes long total)

PS. One of the main reasons Barbie had such a problem with it was because Haynes uses them as a sick representation of the female body, and later in the film as Karen becomes more and more sick, he disfigures the dolls to show the illness by carving away at the bodies and especially the face. Haynes never was able to get the licensing for all the Carpenters songs.

Welcome to Goodburger

I just had lunch at Goodburger in Union Square for the first time, and I have to say, it's a surprisingly tasty burger. That said, does anybody know what the deal with them and the movie (and originally the All That sketch with Kel) of the same name? The restaurant even uses as their slogan "Home of the Goodburger," which of course was Kel's catchphrase.

Google hasn't turned anything up, does anybody else know what the connection is?

Scientology & IP

I came across this article today regarding the church of Scientology and its multiple recent connections to plagiarism and intellectual property. It discusses the accusation by some that L. Ron Hubbard (founder of the church) "plagiarized" Scientology from a 1934 German book "Scientologie" as well as the claim that the church is "alleging intellectual property violations that clearly don't exist" in relation to the church's taking-down of e-meters on eBay. The church also claimed that Nick Denton, Gawker founder, violated copyright infringement laws by leaking a video of Tom Cruise to YouTube. Here's a link:

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/business/newsletter/la-et-scientology3mar03,0,42914.story?track=mostviewed-storylevel

Dining Hall Discussion

Yesterday evening, I found myself eating dinner with two of my friends and somehow we started talking about the purpose of the Internet and whether or not it would be better to have the Internet by the year 2010 or to have flying cars (we got on the topic when someone said that no one predicted the Internet, but tons of people thought that we'd have flying cars by now). Anyway, my friend responded that the main advantage to having the Internet, as opposed to flying cars, was easy access to porn. He made the claim that people are probably much happier because of that and the people who have spent their lives creating porn are doing better than ever. This then lent itself to a discussion about copyright and whether or not it is ethical to pay for porn online since it makes more sense to steal it and watch it on your computer than to actually pay for it, or, acquire porn the old-fashioned way by going out and buying a DVD. Needless to say, I tried to steer the conversation away from porn and more towards music. My friend then came to the conclusion that, in a moral society, people should pay for amateur porn and independent music and should steal big-name porn and hot-shot major label music. His reasoning was fairly simple: the people who make amateur porn are trying to do it more for the art and they aren't looking to make tons of money from it, therefore, it's worth paying for. The guys that make glitsy, mass produced porn who expect to get paid and would put up a big stink about stealing their porn, should suffer from people illegally downloading it. To some degree, his reasoning makes sense and coincides with many people's attitudes about music. I'm sure that more people would buy a CD from an artist that is just starting out and at the same time, illegally download Gwen Stefani's new album. However, if this is the attitude that everyone will take towards paying for music, the major labels and the music industry in general will truly suffer from it. That said, is it possible to show people that all intellectual property is worth paying for, despite what kind of financial or artistic motivation lies at the heart of the property and its creators?

Scrabulous

There's an article in the Times about Scrabulous, the Facebook application with a strong similarity to a board game we're all familiar with. Hasbro has threatened legal action against the makers of the application, who now clear $25,000 a month in advertising, but it looks like everyone's starting to get along.

The comparisons between the board game world and the music world are uncommon, but in this case they're clear. Board games are easy to replicate electronically, and stand to be pretty well revolutionized by the internet--if that's not true across the board, it's certainly true in the case of Scrabble™. What we have here is a Napster moment, where the board game industry could take advantage of this opportunity to do what it ought to, or they could sue and generally harass the makers of this application. If they go with the latter, they will lose the chance to work with a centralized opponent, instead forever working against a million decentralized ones.

(Also worth noting, the IP Hasbro can protect is their board design and rules documents, and a trademark on the Scrabble name. Everything else about the game play, including the general rules, is considered unprotected by law.)

The music industry could have had the ear of every file-sharer there was if they had worked with Napster. Now that kind of scope is unthinkable.