IP Applied Class Blog

2010-04-01T11:20:00.000-07:00

2009-04-17T09:11:00.000-07:00

http://www.nme.com/news/various-artists/44094

Pirate Bay founders sent to prison for copyright infringement

Back to Fashion

2008-12-21T09:47:00.001-08:00

Earlier in the semester, we read and discussed arguments over whether fashion is copyrightable. While fashion currently is not (and should not be, in my opinion), logos and the like upon clothing can be trademarked, and in turn can be enforced through copyright law. This is clear on Gucci, Fendi, Dior and Louis Vuitton products, among others, and explains why they can pursue legal action upon illegal street vendors on Canal Street -- who tend to alter the trademarked logos intentionally.

A friend of mine is starting a fashion line very soon, but logistically, his plans are still in the works. I was talking to him recently and, amid this discussion, he mentioned that he's "all set" and is going to head to the copyright office within the next few weeks to copyright the design for his shirts. I asked him what he meant by that, and he clarified that he wanted to place a copyright on his t-shirt logo. I informed him that he actually cannot copyright any kind of design or logo, but if it is a logo that he'd like intellectual property over, he could seek to attain a trademark for it. I then had to explain the nuances of each of the different types of intellectual property, until he understood why he couldn't just copyright the logo that he made. On the one hand, it was good since it showed me that I really understood what we learned in class this semester. On the other hand, it also demonstrated that people -- just the public in general -- really needs to be educated on matters of intellectual property, beyond just fashion but mainly when it comes to music and issues of "piracy." If people only knew more about all of this...I think there would be plenty more of us leaning towards the copyleft.

Musicians Who Ask For It

2008-12-21T09:43:00.001-08:00

Just as Lessig practices what he preaches by providing free downloads of his books, I appreciate when I go to concerts and musicians - who are realistic about how people acquire music today - promote downloads of their music, and only ask that you purchase a t-shirt or CD if you (a) have the money and (b) if you'd like to. Before I started college and internships and 2nd jobs and had zero time during the school year, I used to go to concerts ALL the time. Even then, I found musicians who promoted free downloads to not only be realistic and well, nice, but I saw them as smart. I for one would not know about so many bands, had I not downloaded their music first. And for the ones I liked, I'd go out and spend my own money on their CD(s). People really just want to sample music beyond the standard iTunes 30 seconds. More artists are acknowledging this -- I just wish that large record companies would too.

IP & Makeup

2008-12-21T09:38:00.000-08:00

Over the last 6 months, I interned for a large beauty company that's over 100 years old and makes billions of dollars in revenue. While I didn't work in the legal department, I know that, like every other large corporation, this company had intellectual property lawyers. I found this interesting for a few reasons. First of all, I think it's great that this company can patent its state-of-the-art skincare technologies (i.e. in the age-defying field) since they are really special and provide a competitive edge for just 20 years. However I wonder what other IP rights a makeup company would like to pursue. Would it try to retain IP rights over its packaging? Color combinations for makeup? What about logos? I was never able to ask, but it's interesting, since IP certainly could serve dual purposes here. In the case of beauty technologies, though, I think it's great that companies can patent their innovative finds.

Macy's Trademark

2008-12-21T09:34:00.000-08:00

I cannot for the life of me find this commercial on YouTube, though I can find every other Macy's commercial from the past few months there. Anyway, as Macy's gears up for the holiday season, every channel has been inundated with all kinds of Macy's holiday commercials. Beyond the holidays was Macy's celebration of its 150th Anniversary. Of these ads, the one that I found most interesting/significant was one that discussed how Macy's acquired its Red Star trademark. It's a very simple and kind of funny story, but one that ultimately describes how a simple symbol is now Macy's intellectual property. Macy's founder had a tattoo of the red star, liked it, and voila - it became Macy's trademark. Not only was it on its founder perpetually, but now Macy's as an institution can hold it hostage for as long as it wants to as well!

Guilt Tripping Pirates

2008-12-17T08:04:00.000-08:00

I just came across this and thought it was really interesting, very well done. I bet it would work in some way. seriously, check it out: guilt tripping pirates.

I figure it would have to work to some extent. Maybe I'd still use the code, but go out and buy it eventually. It reminds of me the In Rainbows CD by Radiohead, using the message: hey, we're the good guys. you guys can have it for free, but if you appreciate us and our work, pitch in.

not a terrible idea.

A Polemic Against Free Speech Restrictions: Immortal Technique's "Freedom of Speech"

2008-12-16T17:46:00.000-08:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCYbZZTEwiM&feature=PlayList&p=0EC15B796E524E38&playnext=1&index=2

Immortal Technique is a rapper whose songs scrutinize the status quo; criticizing elements of American culture from Bill O'Reilly, to the prevalence of racism, the inaccuracy of Fox News, the corruption of the Bush administration (for more on this, check out his track Bin Laden with Eminem: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WA_xXWSXyFI&feature=related), corporate America, major media outlets, and even Disney.

His song "Freedom of Speech" deals with a lot of concepts prevalent to this class. Most significantly, he discusses the suppression of the recording industry, and how he has made his money by utilizing either illegal or unconventional techniques (he references "bootlegging"). Despite many offers, he has always refused to sign with a recording company, based on his political beliefs that they exploit artists for their own capital gain).

His raps are highly politicized, and actually contain really intelligent and quality lyrics (a refreshing change from the typical bitches/hos rap). I listed some of the most striking lyrics below.

Interestingly enough, his song contains a mashup with Pinnochio's "I've Got No Strings." He uses the lyrics from Disney to simultaneously reject the concept of being tied down as a puppet for the recording industry, and to confront and reject Disney culture. His profane lyrics, coupled with the Disney mashup and an outcry against free speech, make for a fascinating (and wholly applicable) song.

Fuck a record deal, I want development land.
With my benevolent clan.
And that's the reason why I only trust my fam.
40,000 records sold
$400 grand
Fuck a middle man, I won't pay anyone else
I'll bootleg it and sell it to the streets myself
I'd rather be that than signed and stuck on a shelf
And because of this, executives try to diss me
(Fuck y'all)
Racism frozen in time like Walt Disney
And now they say they want to get me signed to the majors
If I switch up my politics and change my behavior
Tryin' to tell me what to rhyme about over the beat
Bitch n***** that never spent a day in the street
...
This is America, I thought we had freedom of speech?
But now you want to try to control the way that I speak

Definitely check out more of his songs if you have a chance; they're all excellent and have really strong political messages.

ART AND INFLUENCE AS CROSS-CULTURAL EPHEMERA

2008-12-16T10:13:00.000-08:00

The Key Players...

Brad Pitt (actor): He's HUGE in Japan.

Wes Anderson (director): The quintessential new-school cool auteur's TV spots have been in high demand ever since his innovative 2006 AmEx short.

SoftBank (producer): The Japanese cellphone company has boatloads of money and doesn't mind spending it on commercials (they've worked with Brad Pitt before, in addition to other megastars like David Beckham).

Jacques Tati (inspiration): The ad is a remake of a scene from the 1953 Jacques Tati film M. Hulot's Holiday, which introduced the seminal French comedic personage Monsieur Hulot. Somewhat akin to Peter Sellers' Inspector Clouseau, Hulot has also been cited as a key influence for Rowan Atkinson's Mr. Bean.

France Gall (sound design): The 60's Franco-pop chanteuse's "Poupee de Cire, Poupee de Son" serves as the advert's soundtrack. Serge Gainsbourg wrote the song, but it's been covered by many including Belle & Sebastian and Arcade Fire.

Why Copyright is Relevant: In Lessig's Free Culture, he invokes the notion of film sampling. More specifically, he speaks of a reported Mike Myers/Steven Spielberg project in which the man behind Austin Powers was going to be digitally reinserted into classic films to "allow audiences to see old films in a new light." This venture never came to fruition, possibly due to copyright barriers. Anyhow, the sampling of film styles is nothing new, as homage is considered one of the highest forms of flattery and outright remakes are commonplace.

In regards to the SoftBank commercial, the reference to Tati will probably boost his film sales and all parties will be satisfied, but the Internet seems to present a number of unforeseen issues. When a clip was uploaded to YouTube, it was quickly removed due to a claim of infringement, and now the only version on that website is completely in Japanese. I'm not familiar with the country's copyright laws, but they may have something to do with all this.

Furthermore, Wes Anderson has taken liberal influence from a number of other filmmakers to develop a style that is distinctly his own.

There's quite a bit to unpack here, but it's a lovely gem of a video.

K-Pop Plagiarism?

2008-12-13T11:34:00.000-08:00

Lee Hyori, a Korean pop-star was accused of plagiarism by Britney Spears' creative team a few years ago for her song, "Get Ya" which was deemed to have plagiarized the beat of Spears' song as well as the intonation of Spears' chorus. Hyori says "I'm gonna get ya" with the same inflection as Spears' line "Why don't you do something". Below is a link to a mix of the two songs together. Hyori's people immediately pulled the song from promotion once Spears went after them which didn't help them culpability. However looking back on our course dicussions about the difference between copyright and plagiarism, when you listen to the song it's pretty clear that Hyori says the line in a way that is very evocative of Spears' delivery but even still I don't consider that infringement. You can't copyright a way of speaking. This is more a matter of ethics than legality if you ask me. Anyway, enjoy the video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3QvbKoQ-bk

Radiohead's flexible business model

2008-12-11T12:01:00.000-08:00

While doing research for my exploration of new music business models appropriate for the developing digital and online environment, I found countless articles on Radiohead's recent album "In Rainbows"

They released their third album at first only on their official website, available for download "pay-what-you-like" and then released in hard-copy cds and premium box sets.

This album sold more copies (in every form) than all of their previous albums combined, 3 mil total. (not to mention bit torrent and limewire) Their hard-copy album sales, surprisingly, made up more than half, 1.75 mil. which is also more than each of their other albums. They also sold 100,000 box sets, at 40 euros a piece. This is a clear indication that the market is shifting, as well as larger currents of social organization around production/consumption. This is the flexibility that will determine who survives these changes.

Gore Tex and 'lo Sweaters

2008-12-11T11:50:00.000-08:00

RAEKWON SINGS MICHEAL JACKSON from Urban News Network on Vimeo.

Wow. Is this a public performance? Or does the club already pay ASCAP a blanket fee? Either way, this is absolutely insane.

Viva la Vida

2008-12-11T10:29:00.000-08:00

Not sure if anyone has been following this, but guitarist Joe Satriani filed a lawsuit against Coldplay for allegedly plagiarizing his 2004 song "If I could Fly" with their single "Viva la Vida." Coldplay's public reaction was one of surprise, as they claimed that any relation to Satriani's song was purely coincidental. According to the article, "King said it's common for musicians to be influenced by other works and incorporate it into their own, sometimes a little too closely. But he said that the reaction is usually different when the similarities are pointed out."

that was quick...

2008-12-11T10:21:00.000-08:00

So, I was trying really hard not to blog about the lawsuit of copyright infringement over Tyler Perry's "Diary of a Mad Black Woman" BUT I finally gave in because was extremely shocked how quickly the case ended up being splashed across the media from news to settlement. The lawsuit was filed in May 07 but it was not until the last two weeks or so that the media coved the lawsuit. The lawsuit was filed by Donna West on the grounds of copyright infringement. She believed that "Perry lifted material her 'Fantasy of a Black Woman.' The play was performed three times in 1991 in Dallas and West contended Perry could have gained access to the script in 1998 when he presented his plays at the Dallas Black Academy of Arts and Letters.Perry, who testified during the trial, insisted that his screenplay is an original work. His work on the film gained him several awards and nominations." West was asking for damages and profits. It was found that Perry did not infringe on copyright. It seems as though there is an overwhelming cases of copyright infringements in the news in todays day and age. From Madonna to Coldplay...when is it(both the infringing and the accusation) going to stop? Why is this the case? Have we just run out of originality?

RIAA Bans Telling Friends About Songs

2008-12-11T03:27:00.001-08:00

A few weeks ago I was browsing around and I ran into this

FINAL PAPER: any suggestions?

2008-12-11T03:15:00.000-08:00

I know this is long, but it's my research for the final paper, if any one has any comments or ideas I would really appreciate it. Thanks! -Dani

"Good Artists Copy. Great Artists Steal."

CASE/RULING:

Rogers v. Koons, 751 F. Supp. 474 (S.D.N.Y.) aff’d 960 F.2d 301 (2d Cit. 1992)

-Leading U.S. court on copyright, dealing with the fair use defense for parody

-Ruling: The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found that an artist copying a photo could be liable for infringement when there was no clear need to imitate the photo for parody.

BACKGROUND:

-Art Rogers, professional photographer, took a black and white photograph of a Mr. and Mrs. Scanlon who hired him to photograph them with their new German Shepherd puppies. Over 10,000 reproductions of the image were made. The photograph was entitled “puppies” and was used on greeting cards and other generic merchandise.

-Jeff Koons, famous artist, found the picture on a postcard and decided to make a wood-painted sculpture based on the picture for an art show (“Banality Show”) at Sonnabend Gallery on the theme of banality of everyday items.

-Koons had been in the habit of creating sculptures and other works of arts from photographs by others. He believed this to be much like the file of images he worked from, stating that it was typical and commonplace—as an image part of the mass culture, “resting in the collective sub-consciousness of people regardless of whether the card had actually ever been seen by such people.”

-Koons ripped off the portion of the postcard which contained the photographs copyright information and gave the picture to his assistants with specific directions on how to model the sculpture. He instructed his assistants to copy as much detail as possible while making the puppies blue with exaggerated noses. He also asked that hey add flowers to the hair of the man and woman.

-The sculpture entitled “String of Puppies” became a huge success at the Sonnabend Gallery where it was displayed on November 19, 1988.

-Koons sold three of the four copies made for a total of $367,000, and kept the last for himself.

-When Rogers discovered that his photograph had been copied he sued both Koons and the Sonnabend Gallery for copyright infringement.

-Koons admitted to having copied the image intentionally but claimed fair use for parody.

-Image of “Puppies” by Art Rogers (1980): http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/rogers_puppies.gif

-Image of “String of Puppies” by Jeff Koons (1988): http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/martin/art_law/koons_puppies.jpg

COURT RULING:

-The court found “substantial similarity” between the two works and knew that Koons had had access to the photograph, thus ruling that the sculpture was a copy of Rogers’ work.

-“Fair Use” did not suffice as an argument for Koons, as the court stated that this parody could have been constructed without copying Rogers’ specific work.

-The Appellate Court held that a reproduction of a photograph in a sculpture form constituted a definite copyright infringement.

-As applied to the law, the Court found that the facts in this case supported an unauthorized copying by Koons

MORE INFORMATION:

-Koons maintains that he creates his work in an art tradition dating back to the beginning of the Twentieth Century, which defines its efforts as follows: when an artist has finished his work, the meaning of the original object has been extracted and an entirely new meaning is set in place.

-In October 2006, Koons was commissioned to create a seven painting for the Deutsche Guggenheim Berlin. He drew a part of his work from a photograph by Andrea Blanch titled “Silk Sandals” by Gucci. This photograph had been published in Allure magazine in August of 2000.

-Koons took this image of the legs and diamond sandals from the photo, omitting any background details, and used it in his painting “Niagara,” which includes three other pairs of women’s legs over a landscape of painted cakes.

-In court, Koons’ argued that “Niagara” was “an entirely new artistic work…that comments on and celebrates society’s appetites and indulgences, as reflected in and encouraged by a ubiquitous barrage of advertising and promotional images of food, entertainment, fashion and beauty.”

**Koons notes that it is important for him to use these photographs, to copy—to appropriate or whatnot—rather than painting the legs himself because: “my paintings are not about objects or images that I might invent, but rather about how we relate to things that we actually experience....therefore, in order to make statements about contemporary society and in order for the artwork to be valid, I must use images from the real world. I must present real things that are actually in our mass consciousness.”

-The decision was made in the U.S. District Court found that “Niagara” was a “transformative use” of the photograph and ruled in favor of Koons.

-Blanch comments that she would not have minded this use and would have not taken it to court had Koons simply asked for permission. Blanch has appealed.

-Andra Blanch’s “Silk Sandals:” http://iplitigator.huschblackwell.com/Andrea%20Blanch%20Silk%20Sandals%20by%20Gucci.jpg

-Jeff Koons’ “Niagara:” http://ismisms.com/Jeff_Koons/Niagara-koons.jpg

OTHER ARTISTS OR CASES I WILL REFFER TO:

-Genre of Appropriation Art

-EX: Andy Warhol (“Campbell’s Soup” (1968), “White Burning Car” (1963)à appropriated images) who faced a series of law suits from photographers for work he silk screened

· “Art is what you can get away with.”

· “Good artists copy. Great artists steal.” –Pablo Picasso

-contemporary artists that draw upon our image landscape to create a consciousness about our reality within the minds of their audience.

-Up until what point can an artist claim “fair use?”

-Is it the same thing that is happening with music, with mash-ups, with artists such as Girl Talk, with fashion?

-What does this mass use of appropriation tell us about our culture, about where its going, and how do IP laws have to mold in order to fit that?

2008-12-10T18:32:00.000-08:00

The question is: where do you draw the line between influence and infringement? Here is a GREAT example of the gray area between these two concepts. The first clip is Red Hot Chilly Peppers "Dani California" and the second is Tom Petty's "Last Dance With Mary Jane". The two introductions are different enough to not apply as an infringement, necessarily. However, somewhere between infringement and influence lies- RIP OFF. And even the most unsophisticated music listener can detect a rip off. Personally, the conflict is whether or not it is the music itself being borrowed from, or the general groove. Ultimately, claiming groove is really in the intuition of your listeners. And borrowers, evidently.

I unfortunately couldn't get the original Petty video up because Universal Music Group has disabled all embedding on all his content. Lame. Maybe they deserve to get ripped off.....

2008 Wrap-up

2008-12-10T13:31:00.000-08:00

As the semester is coming to a closing I believe it would be helpful for myself and future generations of Copyright students if I made a recollection of my experience. It is safe to say that the course is an extensive study on how copyright affects music, and some other issues as well, but the course maintained a major focused on the music industry. However I was also able to take the information learnt in class and apply it to my own interest in films, understanding how exhausting and discouraging the process of filmmaking can be during modern day. It takes more to clear rights on a movie than to actually produce one. Copyright does not encourage cinematic innovation, as it makes it harder for current filmmakers to be inspired by previous genius of film. There is another aspect of the film that I also regret, the fact that we failed to discuss the culture aspect of the course. I would have liked to discuss the cultural reasons for the ways the copyright laws have become what they currently are in the U.S. but other than that I have enjoyed the course, and can say that Im much more confused than when I started, but at least I tried.

Happy 2009 everyone!

Consolidated Source for IP Litigation

2008-12-10T08:54:00.001-08:00

Just found this article about Stanford Law School launching a full scale online database that stores information about and tracks all IP litigation in real-time, as it occurs within the US. The most important and interesting thing I found in the article was the stated purpose for it: "This publicly available, online research tool will enable scholars, policymakers, lawyers, judges, and journalists to review real time-date about IP leal disputes that have been filed across the country, and ultimately to analyze the efficacy of the system that regulates patents, copyrights, trademarks, antitrust, and trade secrets." The italics are mine, but I think that this part of the sentence is huge. It basically means that there will now be a go to source for anyone willing to track this type of information, and hopefully it will finally show that the system that is currently in place, no longer makes sense. Hopefully having all this raw data in one place will convince someone with power. Or it could be used by scholars to convince people. But having all this information easily accessible, for the first time, could change the way scholars and hopefully even policymakers approach and understand the field.

fighting for children and money

2008-12-07T21:36:00.000-08:00

The battle that has been raging between Brazt and Barbie hasn't just been commercial. Bratz has been the biggest competition to the Barbie ever and after the Christmas holidays, they will be no more. That's because the creator of the Bratz doll drew his first designs while he was still working for Matel. The creator signed away his intellectual property rights by working as a designer for the company. And a court just upheld that the Bratz design actually belongs to its enemy--Barbie.

Outrunning the Law

2008-12-05T20:02:00.000-08:00

There's a new song by independent electronic artist Dam-Funk called "Outrun," which borrows its name from a classic arcade game. In the promotional video for the song, released on Dam's label's website, the song is laid over a couple minutes of footage from the Outrun video game.

This brings up a couple questions, firstly, is this infringing on the game's copyright, or is it a fair use do to its non-competitive nature? Secondly, are promotional videos non-commercial (as they're not explicitly sold unless they find their way onto DVD, but they contribute to related streams of revenue)?

In this case, the artist is rather underground, so it won't raise too many questions, and it's probably good promotion for an all-but forgotten arcade title.

Dam-Funk x Outrun from stonesthrow on Vimeo.

Lion King Fan-Art Archive

2008-12-05T16:52:00.000-08:00

I found a website
http://fanart.lionking.org/
dedicated completely to fan-art in the 'universe' of Disney's move The Lion King. Fans create profiles and upload their interpretations of the characters:

It seems to me that the nature of fan-art, as a derivative, makes it outside of copyright's protection, and allows for the development of a very specific interactive online community made up of artists sharing and posting their work. Without the possibility of copyright (and thus it's infringement) these artists are free to make their interpretations available online to everyone. This is yet another example that creativity and innovation are not competitive resources; all of this artwork is created by fans, as a way of interacting with their favorite movie and each other, not simply for a profit.

Interestingly, the website has a little section on copyright law and fan-art, explaining that the copyright to all of the Lion King's characters is owned by Disney, and that Disney tolerates the technical infringement of fan-art, because it helps business:

"If you draw Simba or Nala or Kovu, you are creating a derivative work—something that U.S. law explicitly defines as being owned by the creator of the original work. Without Disney's permission, all fan-art and fan-fiction using their characters is in fact illegal. Now, don't panic—most entertainment companies (like Disney, Paramount, Dreamworks, etc.) tend to overlook these kinds of copyright violations.... The Lion King fan-art and fan-fiction community exists solely because Disney allows it to."

2008-12-04T14:42:00.000-08:00

I was also going to blog about bratz v. barbie but since it was already blogged about I just want to quickly add something....I think it is interesting that Barbie effectively ran Bratz out of business for "copying" their doll when in reality the original Barbie was based on a European doll and when Barbie was created over here, the first Barbie doll looked EXACTLY like the doll found in Europe.

ok, so being that before the presentations I had never thought that this whole idea of copyright/trademarks and restaurants was even an issue but apparently it is and now 'm beginning to notice it! According to this lawsuit, " CBS is challenging a new Des Moines barbecue restaurant over copyright issues. Jethro's, a restaurant in the Drake neighborhood on Forest Avenue, has been warned it is violating CBS property rights for its references to the Beverly Hill Billies TV show. CBS said Jethro's menu depicts characters clearly recognizable from the popular 60s TV show. Jethro's owners said their artwork is original and portrays a stereotype." Now this I understand as a copyright infringement because they are using the likeness of a TV show character. Its the fact that Jethro's says that the artwork is "original" and shows a "stereotype" that murks up the concept. Being that I have not seen the artwork myself I can not weigh into this argument BUT (a) it is interesting to look at it with the notion that it is a stereotype because it represents a general group not a specific person and (2) the fact that it was an original artwork is interesting but as seen in music it is still a reproduction or copying even if someone else created it first.

Twilight author is a cry baby.

2008-12-04T08:32:00.000-08:00

I recently read a post by the Twilight series author, Stephanie Meyer, on her blog. Earlier this year, a partial draft of Midnight Sun was illegally posted on the Internet and has since been distributed without her permission and permission of her publisher. In an effort to educate her fans on copyright, she brought up the copy's online availability on her website. But to deter her fans from going out to look for Midnight Sun online, she decided to make it available on her own website. She views Midnight Sun's initial online distribution as a detrimental violation of her rights as an author and as a human being; she has consequently decided to stop working on that novel all together. "In any case, I feel too sad about what has happened to continue working on Midnight Sun, and so it is on hold indefinitely."

Although I have never read a book of the Twilight series, I feel it is still a shame that a whole novel just went to waste. Ms. Meyer should complete the novel and publish it for her fans. She obviously has a problem with online distribution of her work without consent (understandably so), but I think her decision to give into what is becoming a cultural norm by posting it herself on her website, crying like a baby about it and refusing to complete the work is a bit irrational. Her response is much like a twelve year old's who doesn't get what she wants.

I'm assuming this author had her first drafts copyrighted, which would mean the online distribution of it without her consent was illegal. I was just wondering if there is a difference in value between a copyrighted draft and a complete, published, copyrighted work?

Barbie vs. Bratz

2008-12-04T06:15:00.000-08:00

Yesterday, a judge in LA banned MGA Entertainment Inc. from selling Bratz dolls; however he did rule that the ban would take effect after the holiday shopping season.

This decision was made after Mattel, the producers of Barbie, sued MGA for copyright violation, claiming that Carter Bryant, the creator of the Bratz dolls, came up with the concept while still working at Mattel. The decision follows the jury's decision which found MGA guilty of copyright infrigement and awarded Mattel "$10 million for copyright infringement and $90 million for breach of contract" (Flaccus).

However, the jury's findings failed to state which Bratz dolls they considered a copyright/contract violation. Originally there were 4 Bratz dolls (none of which are still produced) and now there are over 40. MGA argued that only the 1st generation of the dolls violated copyright; but in the final ruling the judge deemed that all the Bratz dolls are in violation. Thus, after the holiday season, the Bratz dolls will stop being sold/produced by MGA.

What I find most interesting about this case is that the jury found the Bratz doll a case of copyright infringement. I understand that since Carter Bryant had the idea for the dolls at Mattel and instead sold it to MGA and not Mattel, its can be considered a breach of contract. However, to me it still seems unclear exactly how its a form of copyright infringement.

Associated Press: "Judge bars MGA from selling Bratz dolls"

Patents on DNA and Medical Treatments

2008-12-03T23:37:00.000-08:00

We've talked about this in class before, and its been in our readings... but it still intrigues and baffles me quite a bit. Yah, a lot of IP laws hurt a lot of innocent people-- copyright laws hurt start-up artists all the time while favoring the corporate monopolies with the lobbying power and money. But what about these patents on DNA and medical treatments hurting thousands of innocent people just searching for the best possible solution to their problem? Of course, something has to be done in both cases, but it baffles me that it is still an issue. Patents are great to some extent, but there are so many medications out there that cannot be issued to patients in need due to some patent restriction. I came across this article earlier today, about babies diagnosed with epilepsy who may not get the correct exams for diagnosis of a specific kind of epilepsy because of a patent held by Genetic Technologies.

The tests can be performed at public hospitals, but must be sent to Genetic Technologies for diagnosis and then, if necessary, medication. But these tests must be sent to Scotland and take an average of 16 to 18 months to be reviewed. According to the article, this is too much time for the infants to go on with ineffective epilepsy medications. Also, only infants who have symptoms that are almost identical to those of Dravet Syndrome (the type of epilepsy in question) have test results sent over, but there are several variations that can also be tested by these exams, but never are. The article, and those at the public hospitals, claim that they should be able to conduct the exams in-house to help the patients who really do need it and shouldn't be hurt by a patent.

But anyway, this just brings us back to this same situation about patents and the extent to which they should be enforced and when there should be exceptions. Let's hope the next few years really do bring change and radical improvements to patents laws, as both candidates ardently supported throughout their candidacy. Both McCain and Obama specified that they would ensure rapid review of patents and in depth decisions for issuing them and not. Here's to hoping it does change. People's lives in danger when there ARE available solutions because of patents? I understand it's difficult to invalidate some and not others, but it seems ridiculous that this keeps happening so often.

A Win-Win Situation in Configurable Culture

2008-12-03T20:50:00.000-08:00

Shane Mercado is a Youtube hit, raking in over more than 2 million views for a recent video he made. The video a mash-up of Mercado performing the dance from Beyonce's "Single Ladies" cut alongside the video itself. This video has become such a hit that Mercado has media appearances to promote recently appearing on the Bonnie Hunt show. However the larger picture is that these example of configurable culture, of taking Beyonce's copyrighted work and mashing it up in this way (even though it is without her permission) has resulted in a win-win situation for both parties. Beyonce is receiving free-press (for exampleshe probably wouldn't make an appearance on a daytime talk show like Bonnie Hunt's but she just received exposure on that program via Mercado) and Mercado a dancer who is currently out work, is receiving exposure for his talent which might ultimately lead to some career breakthroughs for him in the future. Thinking along the lines of our buddy Tim Wu and the ways in which IP seems to be heavily tied to commerce, it's interesting that we find no take down notice posted on the link to Mercado's video. I'm sure that Beyonce's father her manager and the CEO of her imprint is more than please that his daughter is receiving this huge PR boon... and hopefully a creative fan will receive some benefits too.

See the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ifGHUfR5Ks

My big idea..

2008-12-03T19:53:00.000-08:00

Yesterday's presentation on the competing lobster restaurants reminds me of a little IP problem of my own. I am pretty serious about starting a bar in New York City after I graduate. This bar has a very unique idea, one that I am confident will rake in the business. Among other things, the basic idea is that the bar runs on supply and demand. The prices of drinks are constantly changing like stock prices-- prices rise when that specific drink is in higher demand and falls if it is in low demand. The problem is, this sort of thing exists elsewhere in the world, and my vision is to basically copy everything short of the bar's name. In class we discussed that intellectual property rights could be protected for things like decor and recipes, but my question is, can you protect a pretty general idea like this? The intention of this post was not really to complain about my problems, I am genuinely confused and curious on the matter. If anyone can offer any insight so that I can avoid a lawsuit (let's assume I already have the $6 million needed to start it up), it would be greatly appreciated.

20% byebye

2008-12-03T11:51:00.000-08:00

Because I am writing on Harvey Weinstein's abuse of copyright ownership I thought it would be appropriate to write on the current news breaks that involves Harvey Weinstein and The Weinstein Company. After years of bullying people around and pushing people away, Harvey Weinstein seems to be looking at a bad financial crisis. Two weeks ago, The Weinstein Company fired 20% of their staff in the same day, accounting for more than 20 people. However it is also sad to recognize how the Weinstein brothers did not pay the price but the hard working people that had to put up with his attitude everyday.

Another example of how too much ownership can destroy lives!

More Obamania

2008-12-02T19:05:00.001-08:00

I found some interesting stuff today online, pertaining to Obama's transition website, and thought I'd share. According to this article, the transition website now has a creative commons license, allowing the public to freely use it. As much as I keep finding myself trying to find reasons to be down on Obama (as with any politician) I keep finding stuff like this, that just pushes my opinion of him. Yet again, he is taking the extra step to make sure that everyone has a voice in what he's doing. It may be superficial and not matter, but it's a step. Plus his use of the Creative Commons license just goes to show that he knows these things are out there, and may do a better job pushing for our rights in stead of those of the corporations. Kudos.

...creative commons

2008-12-02T10:57:00.000-08:00

just thought this was interesting and could be potentially helpful in the future....
A Book on Intellectual Property by James Boyle was released under Creative Commons
here is the article
here is the book

just found this tidbit of information too so I thought I should add it to the post.... "President-elect Barack Obama's transition team has licensed the site Change.gov under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, giving visitors more freedom to use content from the site."

better late than never

2008-12-01T20:57:00.001-08:00

I e-mailed my congressman a few weeks ago regarding the second midterm, and he finally e-mailed me back a couple of days ago. His response to my email, although late, was interesting and thorough. Take a look:

Ms. Erica Fisher
80 Ridgecreek Trail
Moreland Hills, Ohio 44022-2379

Dear Ms. Fisher:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me for your news story. It was good to hear you and I appreciate the opportunity to respond.

I’ll be happy to share my thoughts on the major legislation dealing with intellectual property during the 110th Congress. The most important bill that came before Congress was the Patent Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1908). This legislation was introduced by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) in April of 2007. The purpose of this legislation was to move the United States Patent system from the first to invent to first to file like the rest of the world. It would also tighten venue requirements which would prevent “patent friendly” district courts from receiving a large number of patent cases, and create new-post grant review process to allow disputes involving patent quality and scope to be settled outside of district court.

This legislation would also have overhauled the current actual contribution clause that under current law rewards a patentee who sues based on infringement for using their patent in larger products. Many products contain multiple patented inventions, and under current law judges have the right to decide the value of the particular part to the product. This legislation would implement a one-size-fits-all standard which would lead to cheaper infringement of patents where the larger provider would be able to steal the part they need and pay a small royalty to the inventor regardless of how important the part is to the final product.

I do believe that patent reform in necessary, but was unable to support H.R. 1908 because of the actual contribution clause. The House passed H.R. 1908 by a vote of 220-175
on September 7, 2007, but it was stalled in the Senate.

Another piece of legislation that did become public law was the Internet Tax Freedom Act Amendments Act of 2007 which was introduced by Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) in September of 2007. This legislation extended the moratorium on state and local taxation of Internet access and electronic commerce until November 1, 2014. It also includes an exemption from such moratorium for states that previously enacted Internet tax laws. I voted in favor of this bill, which was signed into law on October 31, 2007.

Lastly, the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008, introduced originally in the Senate by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) in July 2008, was also signed into law. This legislation amended both civil and criminal intellectual property law. It also reformed the federal government’s structure for dealing with enforcement of foreign countries’ Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) obligations. It replaced the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordinating Council (NIPLECC) with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (IPEC). The IPEC would now coordinate government agency IPR enforcement actions and have representatives from all agencies involved. I voted in favor of this legislation, which easily passed both chambers.

I hope that you find this information helpful. If you should have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me again. I remain

Very truly yours,

Steven C. LaTourette
Member of Congress

miShare

2008-12-01T16:46:00.000-08:00

Since the downfall of my Zune which lasted a solid month before I decided to completely forsake it, I have been trying to figure out what my next move will be in the realm of mp3 players. Arguably I am going to end up with an iPod touch, its convenient, albeit pricey, but I know how to work the software and the music will at least be mine for the duration of my agreement with Apple. Constantly searching for loopholes in the music purchasing system, while being more or less technologically inept as well as fearful of illegal downloading systems has impeded my ability to be satisfied with iPods but I have finally found a solution that I can be more or less happy with, a miShare. I read about this device about a year ago, but because I actually saw one in a store a week ago, it is less of a myth and thus I am choosing to blog about it now. The miShare is a device that you connect from one iPod to another, and you can share the music. Surprise surprise, it is not affiliated with Apple and I will be interested to see how this plays out, and whether Apple has a problem with the system.

here is a link to the where you can purchase the device, if anyone is interested...it would make a great holiday gift...
https://www.mishare.com/

a small change...

2008-12-01T13:15:00.000-08:00

So, according to the wall street journal... the "markets declare truce in copyright wars." The market they are referring to is Google market which finally "conceded that information isn't free" and that the books they digitize (mainly those still under copyright but not in print) need some compensation. It's cool to think that book that we can not access anywhere else, we can access them online through Google. According to the article, "it was unclear what "fair use" meant to determine how much of a book Google could display before having to pay publishers and authors. The settlement agrees that 20% of a book can be previewed without payment. So while fair use is still undefined for other situations, this is an important precedent that benefits both consumers and content owners. It also, of course, benefits the Google colossus by letting it display for free significant excerpts of books it's already digitized." Once again the vagueness of the definition of fair use comes into play here. I don't know if this could be considered a truce, but definitely a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, it is a step by a company who has money. "The most fascinating truce in the copyright wars is this month's settlement of litigation between book publishers and authors on one side and Google on the other -- at $125 million, the biggest book deal ever. " Google has the funds to pay for this and it is fortunate for us the consumers who need to access these books but how can other companies continue to do this if they do not have the money? It is not feasible, thus can it really impact anything much further after this deal?

New Adidas Commercial

2008-11-29T00:54:00.000-08:00

Watching television over the Thanksgiving holiday I was surprised to see a commercial for Adidas set to a remix of Frankie Vallie's song "Beggin" by French re-edit master, Pilooski. I was introduced to Pilooski about a year ago, when I heard an MP3 of theirs on a French music blog I follow. Pilooski is regarded in music blog land as a highly-skilled crate digger who has revitalized clubland with his ultra rare, bootleg re-edits of tunes by Frankie Valli, the Pointer Sisters, John Miles, and the Alan Parsons Project. Perhaps the reason why Pilooski's remixes have become cult collector items is because they were and perhaps still are illegal; however the sound of his work is amazingly approachable and has complete universal appeal. As can be seen below, the track is what makes the Adidas ad, and the commercial is a great example of the remix culture that today's society is best know for. However, I'm not quite sure of the legality of this track. Has Pilooski cleared the Frankie Valli sample? Additionally, isn't a sync license also needed for the syncing of the track with video footage? Additionally, it is interesting to observe the transformation of a subcultural track into a possible mainstream anthem..... The video is amazing, but I can't help but frown thinking that mainstream is now exploiting Pilooski....

Studios inocent?

2008-11-28T18:15:00.001-08:00

This week in my internship the head of business and legal affairs came to speak to us about her duties and responsibilities in Miramax. It was great to hear a studio's point of view on the matter of copyright litigation instead of continuously learning from biased points of view. I asked her how the mess in intellectual property affected her job at Miramax and how they are used to handling it. To tell you the truth, it seems that at least Miramax is pretty innocent and nice about it. She told us they barely enter any lawsuits and whenever they have outside problems or somebody suing them, they tend to settle in order to avoid large disputes. I do know that this may not apply to all other studios but it would be nice to learn more from the points of view from the other side and why they act the way they do.

America got RickRolled :)

2008-11-27T21:49:00.001-08:00

Did you guys see this today? It was awesome.

Happy Thanksgiving!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXJnOjAGR24

Finally!!!

2008-11-25T06:59:00.001-08:00

APPLE IS GETTING SUED!

ok I don't mean to sound excited but after an entire semester of reviewing the wrath of Apple, it is gratifying to hear they are getting a taste of their own medicine. EMG Technology LLC is suing the company for patent infringement, for a search engine application for the newest iPod 3G. Elliot Gottfurcht and two co-inventors allegedly got a patent for a search engine a month ago, and it is much like the one Apple is using, so they are taking them to court--thank god.

here is a link to the Reuters article...
http://www.reuters.com/article/internetNews/idUSTRE4AN6G220081124

Ipods and Zunes

2008-11-23T09:35:00.000-08:00

Recently my IPOD broke, the 5th one to do so in 6 years. Tired of shelling out $300 on a regular basis, I seriously considered switching to Microsoft's Zune. Unfortunately, I discovered that the Zune is not compatible with Macs, and I was left with no choice other than buying another IPod. Who's responsible for this incompatibly? Is it Mac, trying to defend the IPod marketshare? Or is it Microsoft, being dicks as usual?

In the spirit of blogging...

2008-11-21T07:59:00.000-08:00

Despite publishers' best attempts to track and share ad revenue for their online written content, they have been unable to prevent "outright theft, or the kind of cut-and-paste referencing that fuels the blogosphere" (hmmm, about that...). According to an article on Forbes.com, Attributer, a California-based start-up that tracks copyrighted content on the Web, "one well-known publisher lost some $375,000 per year as a result of ads next to [its] content on other people's pages." I can't say that I've seen any of this purported appropriation occurring online, but just the thought is downright chilling.

IP in NYC

2008-11-20T11:52:00.001-08:00

Before I took this class, I always thought about IP in a very provincial, innocent, and arguably ignorant and basic way. Basically, I thought merely about copyright. Not necessarily even about copyright in the larger sense of what it encompasses in the entire realm of IP, but mostly just about books, literature, and a bit about illegally downloading music. Moreover, I never noticed copyright infringement in my every day life, nor did i think that I knew any "copyright infringers." However, throughout the course of this class I have come to realize that I meet, see, and witness copyright infringers/infringements on an every day basis. The problem is, these infringements/infringers do not have a negative effect on me, but rather a positive effect. At work, we take turns blasting each others playlists throughout the store, music that Rugby is definitely not licensed to play. On the subway, people walk through the trains singing and playing music for tips. Walking down the street, people dance, perform, and play music that is most likely not licensed to them. Although these are all examples of copyright infringement, none of these examples negatively effect or take away from the average person. I would argue, instead, that they add to the culture, atmosphere, and excitement of NYC.

iiNet in Australia

2008-11-20T09:56:00.000-08:00

One of the headlines on Slashdot today was Hollywood's motion to sue Australia's second largest ISP--iiNet. Universal Pictures, Warner Brothers, Paramount, Sony, Twentieth Century and Disney are all after iiNet claiming the ISP is fully aware of its customers engaging in copyright infringement by using BitTorrent to file share. This is really getting to be an age old issue of debate where the presence of a technology indicates the criminal intent to infringe copyright. The Betamax case was more than twenty years ago, and the decision was made that copying content for "time-shifting" purposes constituted as fair use and that manufacturers of those video recording devices could not be held liable for infringement. So Napster went down, and a close eye is watching over systems of the like. Clearly there is a difference in conditions between waht happened in the Betamax case and what was concerning the Napster case. However, I was wondering if the copyright regulations in Australia might actually work to protect iiNet. Who exactly moderates or hears the cases when an American company, association or in this case, entire industry, files to sue a foreign company?

Good News for German Hip-Hop...

2008-11-20T09:02:00.001-08:00

A recent court case in Germany's "highest civil court has dealt electronic band Kraftwerk a blow in ruling that sampling music does not in principle violate copyright." Kraftwerk is perhaps one of the earliest backbones of hip-hop, providing the soundtrack for early b-boys, then Afrika Bambaataa's seminal "Planet Rock," then a slew of other hip-hop tracks.
For example:

Kraftwerk - The Man Machine

MC Lyte - Cha Cha Cha

Jay-Z feat. Foxy Brown

Hopefully the clearance of Kraftwerk's music in Germany will yield some equally rad tracks.

Batman, Turkey

2008-11-20T08:58:00.000-08:00

This past week, the mayor of Batman, Turkey is suing Warner Bros. for using the name of the city without its permission in the summer blockbuster Dark Knight. All I have to say is, really? I mean if this really was an issue the city had prior to Dark Knight, why didn't the sue the previous Batman movies and franchise? I mean, it's pretty obvious that the city/mayor is just after the money (or at least some infamy). Other cities such as Paris and New York never sue the countless production companies that invoke their city name numerous times in countless other movies. Nor does Paris, France sue Paris, Idaho for having the same name. I mean...really, how many rights can you hold to a name?

But no matter, I have a strong hunch that Batman, Turkey's suit will not hold up in court. However, its really the principle of the thing...

holidays on the cheap

2008-11-19T21:09:00.000-08:00

I think it's really interesting that both Walmart and Kmart have almost the exact same commercial for this holiday season: Kmart/Walmart makes Christmas easy. They both talk about how Christmas this year doesn't have to be a splurge--you can still get everything you want by buying it at their store. I wonder who had that genius, original idea first.

Mashup as Cultural Commentary

2008-11-19T21:06:00.000-08:00

Jay-Z and Noel Gallagher of British rock band Oasis have recently been involved in a feud. Noel publicly criticized Jay, so Jay replied with a public performance of mockery and a slightly derisive song.
Production team Cookin Soul obviously smelled the controversy, so they've added to the pantheon of Jay-Z mashup albums with "Ojaysis."
Jay-Z remix records exist in the hundreds since (and even some before) The Grey Album, which is probably due to Jay-Z commercially releasing acapella versions of his albums (I hear he's quite the business man). Anyhow, this new thing is either another example of Jay-Z manipulating the market to promote his albums via user-generated content or slight social commentary in reaction to a public feud (Ariel Sharon x Mahmoud Abbas this is not [though there's an idea]).

Connoisseur of Connoisseurs

2008-11-19T20:38:00.000-08:00

In discussing fan culture a few weeks back, I did not mention my perspective on the subject, which, in lieu of subsequent topics, may have been kind of interesting. I am a die-hard fan of a record label--Stones Throw Records to be specific--as opposed to say a particular artist, author, or 'creator.' This notion goes along with our collective hypothesis that fan culture has shifted notably in the configurable culture era, because I am basically a fan of fans of music.
A clearer example of what I'm getting at is the Criterion Collection (on my mind as of late due to an sizable sale on their website). Criterion, if you're unfamiliar, is a DVD reissue label that began by releasing obscure arthouse/international films that were previously unavailable to the public, but it has now become a tastemaker enterprise that touts a catalog of "important classic and contemporary films" and "cinema at its finest." Without discussing the complex copyright issues inherent to a reissue label of any kind and Criterion's seeming immunity towards those issues, the postmodern notion that a DVD distribution company can establish a fanbase (2 discussion board forums with hundreds of thousands of comments and almost universal critical praise) is in many ways contradictory to the notion of a participatory media era.
Aggregators like reissue labels, record labels, blogs, and tastemakers across the board are definitely restructuring the flow of culture, but a hierarchichal framework still presides over unmitigated anarchy. Whereas historically you might rush to see the new Warner Brothers movie, you may now pick up the new Criterion DVD or the new Stones Throw album instead of a David Bowie affiliated record. Perhaps this will manifest itself more clearly as a meritocracy, the name of the game is branding, and all of the best brands are now coinnoisseur connoisseurs.

2008-11-19T20:25:00.001-08:00

It's incredible to me that an artist with sales as modest as Girl Talk seems to have dominated such a large number of my conversations about music. This week I got into an argument with a fellow musician about whether or not Girl Talk's mash up music can actually be considered music or just creative DJ'ing. I of course, argued that of course it's music. I believe that as a musician, the moment you play your songs for another person, they own part of the song as well. Their listenership contributes to the music's existence and they are therefore entitled to create any secondary meaning they like. That includes the creation of derivative work.

Then I went to a Girl Talk concert last night. Don't get me wrong,belief in his artistry has not changed. But I have to say that I was disappointed when I realized how Top 40 his music had become in the course of just one album cycle. The last time I saw him perform was at Bonarroo 2007 and his mash-ups drew much more heavily on obscure tracks and 'oh shit, no he didn't' moments. But when he started mashing up Kelly Clarkson's "Since You Been Gone" for a crowd of underage, drunk kids from New Jersey, I realized that he was possibly playing more for his audience than himself. Every musician should know the audience that they are playing for and perform accordingly, but that shouldn't twist your musical sensibilities so drastically. I'm more convinced now that Girl Talk may be more of an incredibly innovative DJ than a musician with a "derivative work".

The main question I've asked myself about Girl Talk is: how has this guy not been sued yet!? He has claimed that his use of samples from other recordings constitutes as a fair use because the clips are all so small that their contribution to the song's overall sound is minimal. While his point is valid, considering his last album sampled over 300 recordings, it is still surprising that not a soul has tried to file a lawsuit. It has been suggested that copyright holders are too intimidated by the legal precedent that might be set by such a case. If Girl Talk won a law suit against any of these copyright holders it would expand the definition of fair use exponentially and grant an unprecedented BOO YA to the content industry in the name of remix culture.

the Blue Bunnies: Art v. Craft

2008-11-19T19:51:00.000-08:00

I found this extremely relevant to Sinnreich's "seismic cultural shift" :

In 2004, the San Francisco campus of the California College of the Arts was 'vandalized.' Anna Maltz, a knitter getting her master's from the textile department, collected a group of like-minded cohorts and climbed the facade of the school in the middle of the night to steal the large metal letters: "& CRAFTS" from the front of the building. She then knitted full-body blue bunny suits for her team and photographed them carrying off the precious letters, displaying the photo only on the last day of her senior show.

The university had just made the decision to change its name; from 'California College of Arts and Crafts' to just 'of the Arts.' This decision was based on a market analysis study conducted by university administration, in which they polled prospective students' parents about which name they would choose to send their children to. 'Arts & Crafts' sounded too much like summer camp, so the university decided to jettison the '& Crafts' to elevate the reputation of the whole university. Articulated as a reconciliation between the age old Art v. Craft split, the removal of Crafts from the name functioned not only to distinguish CCA as a fine art institution, it polarized even further a whole group of crafters. Anna Maltz, along with many other artists in the crafts departments, took this opportunity to start a cultural revolution. She had rescued the "& Craft" letters, before they could be officially removed.

Unknowingly completing what Maltz had started, another knitter and textile student Lacey Jane Roberts knitted the letters back into place, in neon orange thread.

Roberts articulates her motivation: "to show comment on the modern hierarchies in place in today’s art world, which in turn are telling of power structures and their effect on minorities as a whole in today’s society." (http://www.queerculturalcenter.org/Pages/War/Roberts.html)

After a long history of 'craft's ideological, economic and legal shift apart from 'art' this provocative rejection of 'craft' by CCA sparked a movement to take craft back; not to prove the artistry in craft (or the craft in artistry,) but to embrace and give value back to the differentiating element between 'art' and all things 'craft': a unification of production and consumption. Aligned and intertwined with the 'slow food movement' and the 'D.I.Y' (Do It Yourself) movement, artists like Maltz and Roberts are using the process of craft, to craft a different system of human organization, a new framework, sewing (or should i say knitting?) up the deep gaps between consumer and producer and bringing them into one individual. Maybe this movement is not just simply a reaction to the university's outlawing of 'craft.' Maybe this is just a little piece in what Sinnreich predicts as the revolutionary influence of "configurable culture."

Illegal Copying in BuyMorea

2008-11-19T18:42:00.000-08:00

My favorite television show incorporated illegal copying into its latest episode in a plotline that proved integral to the episode's outcome.

NBC's "Chuck" deals with an average nerd-next-door who works a low end job at a "Buy More" (think Best Buy). Part of Buy More's "Nerd Herd" (think Geek Squad), Chuck Bartowski was a brilliant electrical engineering student at Stanford, before his roommate--Bryce Larkin---had him kicked out of school, and stole his girlfriend (of course, in the world of dramedies, the plotline is much more extensive than this, but it's a great show that I don't wish to spoil).

Bryce Larkin (Chuck's former roommate/nemesis) ends up working for the CIA. The CIA and the NSA have been compiling all of their data and "secrets" onto a governmental computer. This is known as the "intersect"---the intersection of the NSA and the CIA data. Of course, the "intersect" becomes in demand of every major criminal and terrorist around the globe, all seeking to destroy it in order to preserve their innocence before the US government and to avoid governmental intervention. When Bryce is being attacked by enemy spies, he emails all of the intersect information to Chuck.

When Chuck opens it, all of the NSA and CIA governmental secrets download into his brain. Therefore, Chuck becomes the new "intersect" and is subject to the dangers of every terrorist and criminal group on the globe. The show chronicles his life as both a CIA agent, and as a Buy More employee. Of course, none of his Buy More co-workers can know about his secret spy world.

Chuck Bartowski's best friend and fellow Buy More co-worker, Morgan Grimes, is an underachieving, ethically questionable video game fanatic. He obtains illegal software that allows him to avoid "copy protection" to copy videos, DVDs, CDs, etc. His exchange with Chuck is as follows:

Morgan: "Canada has just delivered its most delightful gift since Shania Twain. Behold, the Q36 Game Copier. Check it out. Now all we have to do is rent a game, rip it, and we never have to pay for our entertainment again."

Chuck: "Yeah, Big Mike is going to be thrilled, seeing as how we SELL video games."

Morgan: "Come on, dude. This thing can ignore all forms of copy protection. It can copy ANYTHING. Highly illegal..."

This device ends up playing a pivotal role in the success of a mission. Chuck and his CIA/NSA cohorts stumble upon data that lists all of the rogue agents of the CIA that have been involved in a corrupt agency known as Fulcrum. Because these agents were embedded within the CIA, they were impossible to detect, and the information is crucial to the CIA/NSA.

After obtaining the information, all seems to go well for Chuck and his girlfriend, Jill---who was his former flame at Stanford and who was stolen from him by Bryce Larkin after being kicked out of Stanford. She has re-entered his life, and their relationship is more passionate than ever.

Unfortunately, a weekend getaway between Chuck and Jill results in Jill being kidnapped. In exchange for her life, Chuck is offered an ultimatum: hand over the Fulcrum operative information, or Jill will be shot.

Chuck hands over the information, which is immediately destroyed by the Fulcrum agent---to the utter despair of Chuck's fellow CIA/NSA operatives.

Thankfully, Chuck was clever enough to use the Q36 Game Copier to overwrite any copy protection on the Fulcrum flask disk, and was able to formulate a copy of the information that the agent was unaware of. The information, then, was preserved, unbeknowsnt to any Fulcrum operatives.

While this is not a realistic example of the uses of copy protection, it certainly is a fun example.

Check out the episode here: http://www.nbc.com/Chuck/video/episodes/?vid=838461#vid=838461

Freemasons: An Acceptable, Supported Remix

2008-11-19T17:32:00.000-08:00

Our discussion of configurable culture and remixes in our past few classes made me think about the Freemasons, an electronic group from Europe who have remixed a number of American musician's singles. In 2006 they remixed Beyonce's song, "Deja Vu" and made it more friendly to European markets in doing so because they transformed it from an R&B song into a house song. They also attracted American house fans to the single. The increased success pleased Beyonce so much she asked the group to remix her other singles. Here we see an example of configuring culture leading to a monetary benefit for recording artists and notice, the recording artists are supportive of configurable culture for doing that for them.

However what if Beyonce didn't make money off of the remix? What if the single didn't receive airplay or garner more PR for her but simply brought her voice into house clubs? Configurable culture allows music to shift into other socio-cultural realms and reach people it might not normally reach. Consider techno-brega from Brazil- doesn't that form allow music that is not inherently Brazilian to become Brazilian?

In 2007, the Freemasons remixed Beyonce's former bandmate, Kelly Rowlands's single "Work" into a Middle-Eastern sounding, dance track that turned the singer into a star in Europe. Was it her artistry that brought her this fame or the work of the Freemasons? Ms. Rowland was quoted as saying, "I feel like I didn't have anything to do with the success of 'Work' in Europe. The Freemason remix took the song to the next level, fans kept requesting it on the radio..."- clearly she recognized the power of configurable culture yet other still deny this artform its place as art. If no other reason than for money though I believe configurable culture should be brought further into the mainstream, be more greatly supported and be more greatly cultivated. IP Policies should be more supportive of sampling (e.g. over-ruling the precedent that there is no de minimis in sampling a recorder track) because as if all the RIAA understands is money than here too not unlike their refusal to support Peer to Peer they are cheating themselves out of some very profitable possibilities.

2008-11-19T17:27:00.000-08:00

The end of file-sharing cases?

2008-11-18T16:55:00.000-08:00

So I really wanted to look for something that would continue today's discussion on configurable culture, but I ran across this first and thought it to be supremely interesting:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/legal-jujitsu-in-a-file-sharing-copyright-case/?hp
Interestingly, in one of the myriad copyright infringement cases relating to file-sharing, someone seems to be challenging the constitutionality of the cases at all. The article explains that law professor from Harvard is making the claim that the use of the civil suits by private companies to enforce a criminal statute, is completely against the constitution. The defendant is now bringing up counterclaims against the record company which is suing him. While this surely will not come to much in the alteration of the prosecution by the RIAA and their ilk, I continue to find it fascinating that while there are so many normal people who understnad the changes that need to happen in our copyright law, no one really seems to be doing anything about it in the larger sense. Maybe, although doubtedly, this will help.

seriously?

2008-11-17T13:33:00.000-08:00

Sometimes I don't understand how/why people in power abuse the IP regulation systems. Apparently, the company Halliburton has added themselves to the list of bullies by "attacking American inventors by subverting the patent system. The company has filed for a patent on patent acquisition and assertion by a (non-inventor) first party against a second party. In other words, they're seeking the exclusive right to use the patent system to create lawsuits instead of useful inventions." I do not understand how this is possible? Why would someone try to stifle invention? Isn't all the chaos about our current IP laws is that they are not clear enough or that they prohibit further creation and new products? So then, why would this company be doing this aside from their ability to generate money through it? I just don't understand why or how a company would be able to get by through hurting so many people-don't you think there would/or should have been an outcry against the company so grand that it would change their minds about it? The whole concept of this blows my mind.

Diagram from BoingBoing.net

Open Source Text Books

2008-11-17T13:22:00.000-08:00

Browsing through the top stories on wired.com, I discovered an online startup called Flat World Knowledge. The site is an open source directory of textbooks. I think it's a really cool idea considering the high cost of textbooks, and the fact that they go out of print in such a short time. If things work out, it seems like this site could be very valuable to students, providing easy access to good, dependable information.

Napster

2008-11-17T13:13:00.001-08:00

It is interesting to see how times changes everything. In the article Napster Judge Calls for Major Copyright Reform, the Judge (Marilyn Hall Patel) who originally "killed off Napster" is still proactive in a discussion that began many years ago over this notion of intellectual property. Here are her "recommendations:"

The new body needs to be a mix of public and private entities with all parties represented. It cannot be a purely governmental body because that is not likely to instill confidence in the public.

All copyrighted music would be part of this system and subject to a compulsory license, with possible opt-out provisions for certain rights holders.

Congress should abolish all current compulsory licenses and adopt a blanket licensing system. (Such a system may have allowed Napster to continue operating, assuming it could afford to pay labels under the compulsory licensing scheme.)

The body would administer all royalty payments and would replace all current systems for doing so.

An independent arm would arbitrate royalty disputes using music databases that allow arbitration to be done with speed and precision lacking in the current system.

Manufacturers and developers would need approval from this body before introducing an application or device capable of recording, distributing or copying music to consumers. The body would include technology experts to aid in making those decisions quickly -- Patel described this as "sort of like the FDA, but much faster."

It is interesting because she is against new legislation which she believes "have become a patchwork of amendments that are adopted as emergencies arise and as lobbyists representing various interests push legislation. Simply put, the system is too complex and doesn't properly address music's present -- let alone its future." Although I have to agree with her that laws do not presently address technology of the future (except in its vagueness), I still am not sure if her proposal would work in today's society without regulatory laws. (This aspect has been an age old question in all of law and society, can regulation occur without regulatory laws.) For this I'm completely not sure because there are regulatory rules now people continue not to follow them whereas maybe if there were no rules but rather a better and clear system for those who should not infringe then maybe it would be easier to do the right thing.

Penn & Teller make a little IP joke

2008-11-17T06:45:00.000-08:00

I was watching a recent episode of Showtime's "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!" about the perceived threat of child endangerment in the world versus the real, statistical threat (obviously the conclusion they came to is that the chances of a child being abducted or harmed in any way is 1 in 1 million, and that most parents are neurotic). This also goes for age-old myths like, standing too close to the TV will hurt your eyes, if you don't wear your coat you'll catch a cold, etc.

Penn and Teller often perform what they call "bullshit experiments" to further their arguments, which are usually silly and obviously unscientific. They're just for laughs. Anyway, in this episode, Penn had a child strap a ruler to his head and stand 8 inches away from a TV screen, "Featuring an episode of the only TV show we could afford the rights to" -- their own.

UT Student gets f!#$%$#

2008-11-16T19:44:00.000-08:00

This week I had nothing interesting to say about copyright so I googled copyright horror, just for the kicks. I came upon a story about an undergraduate student at University of Texas that is being sued thousands of dollars for alleged infringement. This is the twist, apparently she logs on to computers in the school and forgets to log off, then, supposedly, some people log on to her account and download some songs, and puff, she's screwed. So many things seem to bother me about this article such as the fact that perhaps this girl has the worst luck in the world, perhaps she has an evil friend that follows her around because he/she knows she never logs off, or perhaps she is really telling the truth.
Even though the likelihood of this story seemed to bother me, I realized how it shouldn't matter in the first place. Why would large companies attack university students? And why isn't the university standing up for its student? Lately it seems that university students are the naive subjects of lawsuits, merely for the fact that they cant win, so it's a no brainer for RIAA. hilarious?

A Touch of IP In The World of Humor

2008-11-16T19:40:00.000-08:00

This week's episode of 30 Rock dealt with intellectual property (albeit briefly). Kenneth, an over-zealous, excessively enthusiastic NBC Universal page, is devastated to discover that the NBC page uniform that sustains him has been changed. When Tracy Jordan, star of the fictional NBC program "The Girly Show", discovers Kenneth the Page in a funk, he offers to buy Kenneth anything he wants in order to mitigate his depressed mood. The following dialogue ensues:

Kenneth: "The things I want don't have a price tag, sir. Well, money can't buy a sunset, or a child's smile, or a satisfying finale to the hit NBC television series Night court."

Tracy: "COURT at NIGHT? I'm already laughing. Tell me more!"

Kenneth: "Well, Night Court was supposed to end with a wedding between Christine and Harry, but the show didn't get a tenth season, so that great love story was left untold."

Tracy: "So you never got closure with those beloved characters?"

The duo then hatches a plan: they will recall the cast of Night Court to NBC, pay them, and film a series finale that they have personally written.

Liz Lemon, the head writer for "The Girly Show" (played by Tina Fey) stumbles upon the filming session, which is taking place in an NBC studio, using NBC equipment. Outraged, she proclaims,

“You are breaking union rules, our insurance doesn’t cover any of this, and you are potentially infringing on Warner Brother’s intellectual property. Shut this down.”

Liz Lemon is right. Tracy and Kenneth's actions would be an intellectual property infringement, especially considering that they are not transformative in nature. And Warner Bro's, who sued 15-year-old Claire Field, owner of domain www.harrypotterguide.co.uk, for infringing upon their intellectual property despite its clearly noncommercial purposes, has no qualms about being litigious.

Kenneth the Page's response:

“Can I say something? The only crime any of us is guilty of is caring for one another. Mr. Jordan who tried to cheer me up, these wonderful actors who tried to make a young man’s dream come true. If there is a law against friendship, then lock me up. But if there isn’t… then the show much go onward…”

I am somehow convinced that this convolution of "fair use" argumentation would not likely stand up in court. But it sure does make for some quality TV.

The episode, entitled "The One with the Cast From Night Court", can be viewed here: http://www.nbc.com/30_Rock/video/episodes/?vid=834222

Lessig for CTO

2008-11-13T17:58:00.000-08:00

Amidst the speculation surrounding President-elect Obama's (let us rejoice in the officialism) upcoming cabinet appointments, there is talk that Prof. Larry Lessig is being considered for the newly created position of Chief Technology Officer. It's a comforting thought, to be sure, but there's something refreshing about Lessig's relative detachment from the political arena. Still, an administration composed of accomplished academics/professors? Could be the greatest administration of all time (it already seems to be). Would this serve to discredit the copyright guru? How are we feeling about this?

Francis and The Lights

2008-11-13T12:15:00.001-08:00

I'm curious if this is perhaps the future of music. Recently, a group I really, really like and admire named Francis and The Lights became their own business. Although I'm clearly a bit confused about the matter, I'm assuming that in turning themselves into an LLC, Francis will take investments and return the investments depending on their success.
According to their website, with a new $100,000 investment from the Normative Music Group, Francis and The Lights now has a valuation of $1,000,000.
In an article from thenormalist.com, the author writes, "The deal is a milestone for both companies. Jake Lodwick, president of Normative, said the deal resembles an Internet start-up working with a venture capital firm. “Francis Starlite is an uncompromising musician and a strong leader. I believe he will bring Francis and the Lights to international stardom. The spectacular live shows, beautiful recordings, and his relentless character back me up."
I'm curious, of course, about who owns the rights to the music. Does Francis retain their masters? I'd love to discuss in class!

Obama appoints nation's first cto

2008-11-13T09:43:00.000-08:00

So if you haven't seen it yet, Obama's team has launched a website (obamacto.org) where he is asking the nation what the most important technological priorities for the country are. To me this is extremely interesting, as it's not so often that the government actually asksthe country what to do. even more interesting though is the top three most voted for items: first, is ensuringthe internet is widely acceptable and network neutral, which would be huge, next is ensure our privacy and repeal the patriot act, equally huge. third, is to repeal the DMCA. now, it may be unlikely that this'll actually happen but the fact that these are the three topmost priorities for the nation in this area, says a lot, and if Obama is actually tryring to see what we think about it, maybe he'll actually listen.

Double Take

2008-11-13T08:59:00.000-08:00

I'm sure somebody else has already written a post about this, but it's just so awesome that it deserves repeated mention.

The fake copy of The New York Times yesterday was epic. I picked up a copy from the Comm department front desk thinking to myself, "Sweet! A free copy of the Times!" It wasn't until I got into the elevator and started skimming the headlines that I started to suspect anything. Honestly, I was just really confused until I saw the date: July 4, 2009. I even thought it was just a student project until I saw it being discussed on the 10 o'clock news. The most interesting part of the news coverage, for me at least, was when they said that The New York Times should be thanking the Yes Men for the free publicity.

How is it that people can see that so clearly here and not in other situations? Where are the people screaming about the injustice of having so clearly copied the sacred New York Times font, fooling millions into thinking that it was the real paper?! Is this not an infringement worthy of thousands of dollars of penalties?!

Steal this Film...

2008-11-13T04:30:00.000-08:00

A couple days ago, I watched three cops stop to browse the pirated DVD collection on Fulton Street. We all know these DVDs are not legally made nor necessarily legally distributed. I understand that cops may get paid off to not take action against the criminalized activity of "piracy". But to watch three cops stop patrolling the streets to check out this guy's latest DVD stash was at first a bit surprising. Later that day, I saw the first half of "Steal This Film". The makers of this film shed light on the activity of pirating and file sharing without necessarily saying whether it is good or bad. However, after watching the film, I found myself a bit dumbfounded. I had a "Duh" moment. I met one of the makers of the film, Alan Toner, and he said, "All we’re doing is what comes naturally:downloading and uploading." The term "naturally" seems rather appropriate because technology has evolved to the point where we can upload, download, file share and "pirate" content. This film is supportive of file sharing but does not necessarily say that file sharing is good. Just that file sharing is the way things are because we are moving toward a culture of all access.

recycle, reuse

2008-11-12T22:08:00.000-08:00

Although this week's midterm was somewhat difficult, it also helped me see how funny it is that some ridiculous cases are taken serious while others are completly disregarded. While doing research for Schumer's ip legislation history I came upon this one article that said something like "Save the little black dress", explaining how some senators like Schumer, have dug themselves in deep holes campaigning and pushing for making fashion design and fashion styles copyrightable. Fashion is one of the few methods of celebrating and recycling our history. Fashion inspires research and inspires influence. But once again, americans have found a new way to limit inovation and believe in art as something entirely unique. Check out how gladiator sandals have recycled through thousands of years of human history!

IP + Fro-Yo

2008-11-12T21:52:00.001-08:00

Red Mango. Kiwiberri. Pinkberry. Flurt. Eskimix. 12 Handles. Yogurt Land. TLC. Tasti-d-lite.

These are all fancy names for one thing: frozen yogurt.

In recent years, the craze for "healthy" desserts has resulted in an enormous amount of creative replicas of the classic frozen yogurt. Tasti-d-lite and TLC make traditional fro-yo healthier and less caloric. Red Mango, Kiwiberri, Pinkberry, and Flurt all sell a variation of the same tart, plain yogurt-tasting frozen yogurt. Pinkberry claims it was the original, Red Mango claims it is real yogurt and Pinkberry is made from a powder, Flurt considers their yogurt the most "pure." Yet, they all taste virtually the same. You can choose from the same toppings, be equally as healthy, and eat in the same sterile environment at each one. 12 Handles and Yogurt Land change it up a bit. Yogurt Land, 12 Handle's precursor, got creative with the yogurt faze when they created a "do-it-yourself" process. At these two locations you choose from a variety of flavors (10 or so), pump your own yogurt, add all of the toppings yourself, and pay by the pound. Eskimix got even more creative when they decided to mix the yogurt and toppings together into a flurry/blizzard/shake type deal. Although it doesn't have a rival quite yet, in due time it sure will.

My question is: how come all of these companies aren't suing each other? They are so similar, even in their names. Kewiberry, Pinkberry, Red Mango? When the names are the only thing that truly separates them, you would think they would try to be a bit more clever/creative. I am not sure if it's more of a patent issue or a copyright issue, but it seems to me like the yogurt world is a recipe for disaster in the IP world.

2008-11-12T21:31:00.000-08:00

I just did a mock trial in my entertainment law, defending Ralph Nader against Mastercard for trademark infringement and diluation. He made a commercial that essentially was a remake of the credit card company's Priceless campaign. We did win the trial, but i have to admit that I didn't really believe in my cause. I thought it was unoriginal and unfair that he used another creative work in that way. There was really no solid parody defense, so our main argument was that because it wasn't used in commercial speech, it was fair use. Check it out

briana berry

A Change of Tune from Napster Judge

2008-11-12T15:53:00.000-08:00

Judge Miriam Patel, the judge whose ruling ultimately did in the original Napster recently gave a talk about Fordham Law in which she urged for the creation of a new public/private organization that would over see licensing and enforcement of copyright. Judge Patel pushes for the involvement of all parties with interests at stake in file sharing including the public itself. She suggests a situation in which a blanket license would cover all music and royalties involved so that sites such as Napster could provide access to music files provided they could cover the royalties levied by the blanket license. I like Judge Patel's plan because I believe that the current state of technology has shown that file sharing is the current means of acquiring music. Just as telephone policies had to change as that new technology came to the forefront or so too must legislation regarding this technology change as it becomes more and more used and a part of our society. I do however think the body she proposes to regulate the blanket license is a little lofty. While I would love to see the public involved I'm not quite sure how often the public ever can be involved in these matters. Even if an election were held for a seat on this council, corporate payola and lobbying would still be able to shift this council's actions. Additionally this issue is a heated one, like anything heated such as abortion for example, the disparity of views amongst the public is wide and disparate. Still all gripes aside I do think a large blanket license, perhaps something similar to the way royalities are collected for radio public performances, is the way to go for file sharing.

"IRAQ WAR ENDS"...claims NYT article...huh??

2008-11-12T10:27:00.001-08:00

This morning a group organized through BecauseWeWantit.org, to hand out copies of "The New York Times"...follow the link to check it out because I cannot get the image to embed...awesome

anyway...the headline for this so called New York Times article was astonishinlgy IRAQ WAR ENDS, and a slew of other clearly ludacris, or theoretically awesome headlines...maybe it would take you a second to factor in all the elements, like, the newspaper was free, but for all intents and purposes it looks exactly like the times. The group organized through BecauseWeWantit.org, but Hamilton Nolan, a writer for gawker.com, thinks it was probably instigated by The Yes Men, a liberal prank group. The paper is clearly satirical, but it will be interesting to see how the Times responds to this, considering todays world of copyright law and restrictions The Yes Men could be in for some trouble, good luck to them I suppose.

http://gawker.com/5084164/fake-new-york-times-declares-iraq-war-over-heres-who-did-it

"IRAQ WAR ENDS"...claims NYT article...huh??

2008-11-12T10:05:00.000-08:00

Need for New Trends Post-Internet Age Being Recognized

2008-11-09T17:52:00.001-08:00

The internet heralded some major changes for the world; increasing the possibilities for globalization, facilitating communication throughout all seven continents, speeding processes involved in the fields of banking, finance, shopping, research, to name only a few. While much of the internet age was spearheaded by a younger generation, evolving its ideals along with the evolution of the source, many outdated ideologies persisted. Among them---intellectual property and copyright law.

The changing face of the internet has taken place largely within the past decade, during which time a whirlwind of technologies emerged. These past ten years, however, have granted minimal acceleration for some much-needed copyright changes. It is only now, on the brink of 2009, that some of these deficiencies are being acknowledged---and to some, albeit small, degree---remedied.

The AP article "Myspace ad deal lets members use copyright video" should come as a pleasant surprise to myspace users who are fed up with videos disappearing from the site because they are "copyright violations". Instead, a compromise has been struck. MTV Networks and MySpace have struck a deal that permits MTV and Comedy Central shows (e.g. "The Hills" or "Colbert Report") to have clips of their show retained on MySpace, rather than having them completely removed as is common in most cases.

Sure, this compromise involves an "attribution overlay" (a bar at the bottom of the screen that indicates original air dates, and links to purchasing episodes), clips that are incomplete or "cut" (meaning, only part of the original clip will be available to be viewed for free), and will also feature embedded ad time. Yes, these are not ideal circumstances for avid fans. But they're better than the videos disappearing entirely.

In fact, it should result in a fairly symbiotic reaction. Fans will be satisfied (at least to a greater extent than before), and this move will likely increase profitability for MTV Networks. Considering the degree of analysis we have witnessed regarding the correlation between offering content and that content being successful purchased (as we saw in class with Creative Commons lecturer Fred Benenson and his discussion of Nine Inch Nails, etc) it is likely that fans will get "hooked" on episodes after watching a few minutes, and be much further inclined the purchase those episodes.

This could definitely portend greater episode sales for MTV Networks---a relatively new phenomenon, and one that is only beginning to be tapped. Other websites seem to be following lead, such as amazon.com, which features approximately 2:30 of each episode available for free for all of the shows it offers with its Video on Demand service. These episodes then range from .99 to 1.99 to purchase (to be watched online, or downloaded onto one's PC). My own personal experience (and this can be confirmed by a glance at my credit card statement) is that watching some of the episode footage only increases the likelihood that I will buy the entire episode. Watching the content is a much better incentive to continue watching than just reading a summary. Exposure can almost always be equated to greater profits.

Will other networks soon follow suit? It is clear that many networks are picking up on this trend in some context---ABC and NBC offer full episodes of their shows on their websites, although they are only offered for a limited period of time. This may indicate an awareness that more freedom of material can be beneficial for all parties involved, and that current copyright and intellectual property law standards are in desperate need of change.

Article can be viewed here: http://news.findlaw.com/ap/high_tech/1700/11-03-2008/20081103040505_15.html

Marlena Shaw v. Dockers, Acoustic v. Digital

2008-11-07T07:36:00.000-08:00

Eben Moglen's "DotCommunist Manifesto" and John Barlow's "The Economy of Ideas" some up a theme running through all of our readings and class discussions: digital technology is (and promises to be even more of) an equalizer in patterns of access, consumption, creation and movement of information and knowledge. And copyright law is now functioning, not as protection of individual artists' livelihood and innovation, but as a means for those in power to stay in power, as information and art becomes increasingly democratic. The propaganda to convince everyone otherwise goes very deep. I got into a heated argument about copyright in the music industry, with a family friend, Jeff Chambers, an accomplished and working jazz bassist. www.jeffchambersjazz.com/

He articulated that, as an acoustic artist, his whole livelihood depends on his crafted musicianship. And if not for copyright law, these (young, rich, white) kids who can afford to buy fancy laptops and protools, would steal the product of his musicianship to make money that he desperately needs. I kept trying to tell him that copyright law is not really for his benefit, did he even own the copyright to all his recordings? I tried to explain that artists who use turn tables, computers and protools to create music are using previously existing sounds, just as he uses the pre-existing scale and structure of his bass.

Copyright law in the music industry functions to pit old technologies against newer ones, and older musicians against younger ones. Chambers conceives of young musicians who create digital works, derived from analouge work, as a force keeping him from his deserved compensation. Recently, Dockers came out with a commercial, using a remixed version (by Diplo) of "California Soul" by Marlena Shaw (a jazz singer Chambers has played with for years). She didn't get a penny, and I think Universal sued (I'm not sure what exactly happened, but I know she was pissed.)

Interestingly, Gangstarr sampled "California Soul" in 1988 in "Check tha Technique." Pete Rock used "California Soul" again in A.D.O.R.'s 1992 track "Let it All Hang Out." Not until the song was used in a Dockers San Francisco ad was there any fuss over it being sampled.
On YouTube, 'rapsmackcrates' comments on his/her posted video of Marlena's original version: www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmk30mvVz3Y
"UMG and their associates can die in a bonfire of copyright forms.
If it wasn't for that Docker's commercial this site wouldn't have gotten so many hits. It wasn't until it got more hits that UMG slapped their cocksucking advertisements on it.
I'll leave this site up for the fact that I like getting good music out to people who actually want to listen to it. Not to get money, but for the sheer fact that I respect Marlena Shaw as an artist and I love her art.
Fuck you, UMG. It's people like you who have ruined music and you are the sole reason music is increasingly getting more and more shitty."

I can see why musicians like Marlena Shaw and Jeff Chambers would fell ripped off by new technologies in music using their recordings, and why they see digital musicians as privileged. But I also know a lot of young (urban, minority) kids who use protools and computers in small garage/closet-studios, who see acoustic instruments as belonging to the privileged class. A grand piano or acoustic guitar costs a lot more than the computer you already have. Clearly, exploitation comes from neither.
How can we do away with major labels, out of date copyright laws, and encourage the spread of digitally democratized music, without hurting established acoustic artists?

The Disney Collection

2008-11-07T07:05:00.000-08:00

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Disney now has its own line[s] of high-end clothing, accessories and home furnishings. Yes, as if we need Mickey Mouse to permeate our culture even more than he/it does now.

Some of the items are pretty absurd, and I don't think many people would be caught dead wearing Mickey Mouse pumps or fitteds:

But perhaps I'm underestimating the power of the Mouse.

Some of the items don't have a hint of Mickey in them, but are instead inspired by other characters (i.e. Tinkerbell in wedding dresses) or Disney ideas (i.e. "Storyteller Sofas"), and are actually quite beautiful:

There are a couple of interesting things about this. First of all, it seems as though Disney is trying to put its mark on most aspects of a person's culture and/or style, first through all of their media and lower-end clothing and merchandise, and now through their higher-priced "couture" line. But what I'm wondering is if Disney is going to claim any intellectual property rights over these items, since they're so crazy about their copyright. Obviously we know that they can't technically copyright a couch, dress, or handbag, but I would not be surprised if they tried to. Especially when it comes to the items that do have the Disney "stamp" on them through characters...would Disney go after items that look similar but don't have a mouse protruding from the toe? Would they sue couture wedding dress designers for stealing Tinkerbell's essence and placing it onto their own designs? The possibilities are endless, really, and Disney would not surprise me by trying this. Another thing we have to consider is that the more Disney permeates our culture with Mickey Mouse alone, the more they're going to try to get a perpetual copyright on Mickey Mouse, since apparently he's so fashionable now.

The New York Times' Style article on this can be found here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/fashion/06disney.html

Heller on Big Think

2008-11-06T14:20:00.000-08:00

Hey, all. I was able to catch up with Heller after class to see if he would be nice enough to come by where I work, Big Think, to sit down for an interview. These are all of the features we made from the session. Check 'em out, and if you have some extra time, feel free to peruse the site. We've been able to reach out to some pretty amazing people. Big Think is a video-driven public sphere that engages the world's leading intellectuals, artists, etc. Feel free also to post a comment on any one of his (or someone else's) videos.

How Secret are Trade Secrets?

2008-11-06T11:46:00.000-08:00

I'm going to assume that there is no patent on grocery items such as fruit loops or ginger ale. Like Coke, these things are most likely protected by trade secret, which doesn't necessarily stop anyone from producing similar products. I went grocery shopping at trader joe's and I noticed the amount of items that were essentially generic remakes of other popular brands. Which is fine and appreciated because they are so much cheaper. But when the packaging also mimics the original, it seems like there is arguably some infringement going on. The products aren't exactly in direct competition with each other because trader joe's brands aren't sold anywhere else and vice versa. And there isn't any consumer confusion because they clearly say trader joe's. But I am really surprised that there aren't more lawsuits for unjust enrichment. The generic products are capitalizing on already established brands without haven't to do any brand development. Too bad you can't trademark a recipe.

More MySpace News...

2008-11-06T10:33:00.000-08:00

I posted last week about MySpace, and their attempt at cracking down on copyrighted media. I focused the post, however, on music, in what I saw as an interesting strategy that might lead to a potential MySpace Music store. I read an article recently, however, that focused on the use of copyrighted video; video is an extremely important part of the MySpace brand, and the use of video allows users to customize their pages with clips that represent their character. MySpace does indeed attempt to control the use of copyrighted material (usually the display of shows like "The Hills," "The Daily Show," or popular commercials); however, their ability to control the illegal use of videos is rather difficult.
Recently, MySpace music and ad technology firm Auditude have partnered with MTV Networks in order to strike a progressive deal regarding the use of copyright video clips. The three companies have formed a partnership "that will let ads be placed in clips of the network's shows that users upload to MySpace."
This is an important step for MySpace; they can avoid copyright infringement by giving the creators of the content in question a proper cut of the revenue acquired from the ads. The software provided by Auditude will detect when a Myspace user has uploaded a clip from an MTV Networks program, and will subsequently lay an ad at the beginning ranging from 10 to 15 seconds.
One point made in the article, which I was contemplating myself, is whether or not MySpace users will be incredibly bothered by the ads. Since it is only MTV Networks, Auditude and MySpace that stand to gain from the attached ads, I wonder if MySpace users will abandon MySpace for a new, unregulated MySpace-esque social networking site. I do, however, think that Auditude is pretty cool technology.

Google books in a perfect world...

2008-11-05T19:29:00.000-08:00

Over the weekend, I was working on a paper for my history class on Chinese food in the West (the class is called Food & Drugs in Chinese History). And while I was doing my research via JSTOR and Google, I stumbled across the perfect book for my research. However, while excerpts of it were available online via Google Books, I wanted the whole thing so I ventured up to Bobst. Unfortunately, when I got to Bobst, the book was no where to be found (likely being held by someone else in the same class), so I had to resign to only using the parts available from Google books for my paper.

All the while I was writing my paper, I thought about how great it’d be if that entire book was available online, instead of just having “publisher-permitted” excerpts. While I understand that the publish wants to make money by selling this book, the book currently in question is out of print & can’t be purchased directly (at least not through Amazon) anymore. So if it’s not being sold, is it really necessary to keep all that information locked up from an inquiring student? I think not, but then again….it’s my fault for not getting to the library sooner.

Gnutella vs. Nutella

2008-11-05T16:03:00.000-08:00

All of this talk in class about Gnutella, the file sharing network that Limewire exists on, has got me wondering about a possible connection with Nutella, the delicious chocolate spread. Turns out the similarity is no coincidence; the name Gnutella is a combination of GNU (an operating system) and Nutella, which the creator supposedly ate a lot while working on the project. But if McDonald's can claim to have ownership of any food that starts with Mc, then cant Nutella have a legal case against the domain name? Turns out, yes. Nutella filed a cease and desist injunction against the network back in 2001, claiming that the name violated its trademark (not copyright, but intellectual property nonetheless). This is hilarious to me, not only is Gnutella hit with a slew of infringement lawsuits from the nature of its product, but it has also been hit with one because of its name itself. How fitting.

Translation Patches and Rom Hacks

2008-11-05T15:21:00.000-08:00

http://everything2.com/e2node/The%2520Whirlpool

The above gives a concise description of The Whirlpool (donut.parodius.com), a site I used to frequent a lot when I was in middle school. I didn't have a video system at home until I was in 7th grade and up until that time and even somewhat later I was in the habit of downloading video games as roms and playing them on emulators. Roms contained the code in video game cartridges and allowed these games to be run by programs called emulators on pcs. Even though I was "deprived" of SNES as a child I still experienced and enjoyed most of the games my friends played. Even better though, I was able to play games that never came out in the USA because of sites like The Whirlpool which hacked roms and translated Japanese games into English. I remember there was often a warning stating not to download a rom unless one owned a hardcopy of a game (remember we are allwed to copy things we own in this country) but I always found it odd. If a game was never released in America was I really doign somethign wrong? I couldn't possibly buy the thing anyway right? I remember when my friends later bought the Final Fantasy V and VI compilation Squaresoft released for the PSX, my friends thought they were playing games that had never come out in America before but I'd already played them. Here's an example of a company controlling content and limiting people's exposure. Squaresoft thought Final Fantasy V was too hard for Americans so they didn't release fearing no one would want to play such a difficult game in this country. Yet when released years later on a system where the game itself seemed outdated, it did fine. However for every Final Fantasy V there is a game that never saw a U.S. release. I maintain that here is an example where the sharing of files and hacking of them outside of the reigns of a corporation is not something that should be punished. People could never have experienced this games otherwise and furthermore I would have no problem saying that it is very likely that the availability of this illegal hacks helped to generate the interest in Squaresoft releasing all of its Final Fantasies in the USA albeit years after their original Japanese releases. Why? As we discussed in class, fan cultures often involve collecting. Die-hard Final Fantasy fans want to own the games, not have them as files on their computers. So yet again we see that Peer 2 Peer and the altering of content by fans often encourages fans to spend more money on the franchises they love at the end of the day!

DRM-free music, Apple's new leverage

2008-11-05T09:46:00.000-08:00

Apple confirmed yesterday that Tony Fadell is stepping down from his post as iPod chief. He is credited by Fortune as the person behind the idea that a music store and music player could succeed when linked together. He has been apart of the iPod team since the first creation back in 2001 and has been a big part of the creation of the iPhone. Fadell is being replaced by an IBM executive whose expertise lies in servers. We saw that last year Steve Jobs made a statement on music and DRM, urging a DRM-free world. Remember however, that the successful iPod/iTunes model has leverage because of the way they restrict iTunes music from playing on other players through the use of DRM. As we notice changes in the execs at Apple, we realize the new strategies that Apple is implementing into their business model, and their transition away from the powerful cartel that revived the company. As Aram discussed in class yesterday, Apple knows they can't lock down the iPod/iTunes market thing for much longer, so to stay ahead of the curve and remain on top, they are preparing for their next phase. With 3G and wifi capabilities of the iPhone, it would seem they will try to implement a new way of accessing and listening to music. Rather than downloading from the store track-at-a-time on the home PC and transferring over to the iPhone, Apple looks like its planning on cutting out that middle step and connecting the iPhone directly with the big server in the sky. And who better to create a server powerful enough to host millions of songs to millions of people all over the planet than Mark Papermaster of IBM, a server extraordinaire.

With DRM tying music up, this new model would be severely crippled, so it's in Apple's best interest to encourage this transition so they can work with multiple cell phone service providers and not have to worry about the DRM being compatible across the board. This is what Aram was talking about in his article "Right move, Wrong reasons." We are watching the pieces moving into place for something that has been in the works since the iPhone's inception.

bphone for Blackberry: original?

2008-11-05T08:38:00.000-08:00

http://rogersmj.com/tech/blackberry/bphone/

Yesterday, my friend whipped out his phone to show me that his blackberry now had the icons from the iPhone via a free download sent to him by a friend. Immediately, I asked, "Is that legal?" He responded, "Of course, my friend sent it to me." Apparently, he needs to enroll in Copyright, Commerce, and Culture next semester. This download, known as bPhone for BlackBerry was created by Matthew J. Rogers. This theme, designed to mimic the iPhone icons is admittedly inspired by the the iPhone, according to Rogers' blog. Additionally, everything, from the icons to the top banner and signal and battery indicators, were created from scratch. Rogers, however, also warns, "I offer no warranty and cannot be held responsible for anything that may happen to your BlackBerry as a result of installing this theme. This theme can be installed through a desktop installation as well as an over-the-air installation. Rogers encourages people to download through the over-the-air installation because some versions of Desktop Manager are not compatible with the software. Is this free software legal? Did Rogers create this theme from "scratch?" Is this a stolen or "inspired" theme?

Lawsuit between LSAT Preppers

2008-11-04T17:03:00.000-08:00

I should have known that the cheapest LSAT test prep program was just too good to be true. Blueprint marketed their company as the simplest and most affordable solution to LSAT test taker woes. Just after I completed a 4 month program with this test prep center, news got out that Blueprint is being sued by the Testmasters. Apparently all of the Blueprint tutoring material is Testmasters material, and Testmasters is not happy about having their LSAT formulas being stolen.

I believe there are many ways to approach the LSAT logic games, reasoning and reading comprehension. Different prep companies generally use different techniques, but often I found that Princeton Review would suggest the same technique of approach as Blueprint. When it comes to standardized tests, I would assume that there is one right way of solving a problem. Therefore, I see no grounds for Testmasters suing Blueprint.

On the other hand, Blueprint was selling Testmasters product for a cheaper price, which directly affects Testmasters' revenue since college students are looking for the most affordable solution.

Ringtone copyright infringement

2008-11-03T21:27:00.000-08:00

I was thinking about Girl Talk the other day and how sampling music for public distribution, despite how small the snippet or how original the usage, is a violation of copyright law. This got me wondering whether cell phone ringtones that play portions of songs, or even further, polyphonic/monophonic ringtones are also in violation. I looked up the issue and to my surprise, it has actually been quite a large debate.
In a 2006 court case, the Copyright Board sued ringtone manufacturers on behalf of the RIAA on this very question. The ruling said that ringtones of any kind are classified as digital phonorecord deliveries (or "DPDs") and as such, fall under section 115 of the Copyright Act which requires that manufactuers obtain licensing at a small fee. This means that it is technically illegal for anyone to download a ringtone from a website that has not been given proper licensing priveliges (or of course if it is a classical piece where the original author has been dead for 70 years). This ruling makes sense to me, especially in the case of mastertones which are a complete recording of the song, though I was unsure whether the length of the sample should make a difference. After all, it is not illegal to hear 30 second samples on iTunes, etc. But from my understanding, the length of the ringtone makes no difference and any portion is subject to licensing by section 115.

myspace & copyright

2008-11-03T20:42:00.000-08:00

Now, I am not acquainted with MySpace these days, but I am not sure if what they did is going to be a new model or impact copyright in anyway but it still is interesting. Here is the article which I am referring to....Myspace is taking the "if you cant beat them then join them" approach with copyrighted video's. "Instead of trying to take down all copyright-protected videos that its members post, MySpace will let certain clips stay — and give the creators of the original content a cut of the revenue from advertising that will be attached to the snippets." Essentially, they are adding advertisements to the videos (which are approved to stay on their site through this partnership). "Over on MySpace, the overlays and ads are expected to start showing up in the coming weeks, and MySpace and Auditude predicted that new ad formats and ad partners will soon follow. But will users be bothered by having ads tacked to videos they post to their MySpace pages?" I understand that the video's may not be owned by the people who post them and that they are most likely infringing on copyright but how can myspace just add and advertisement to a video, wouldn't that in some way be changing the video posted and the meaning and possibly discourage people from posting videos overall ( which then would lead to loss in advertisement sales on the website through this new video deal?)
update: ok so literally a minute after i posted my blog i proceeded to watch the Obama/McCain Dance Off Video and an advertisement for Tide popped up on the video which you have to click out of to have an unobstructed view of the video....so MySpace is following this method, and although not all videos on YouTube have them, so therefore I have not run into it until now, it really irked me!

so many shows...

2008-11-03T18:13:00.001-08:00

For anybody who has argued that IP policies and copyright laws encourage innovation, they have not been watching cable television for the past couple of years. It seems that the mood of the upcoming years in television business could be carefully defined as "playing it safe". Networks seem to find a single format that works for them and recycle it in many ways possible, holding monopoly over the formats, reducing copyright fees and "playing it safe". The CW has determined to make every type of show based on rich brats: "full of money and lack of parental attention" while TNT is willing to go down with its schedule of endless re-runs and franchise exploitation of Law And Order. However, the story that brought all of these thoughts to my head is one of extreme hilarity. Bravo has grown in popularity since Heidi Klum's monopolization of the role of the decider along with "make it work" fashionista Tim Gun. However the network's love expressed by their investment on a second season of "Top Design" may have grown into a phase of obsessive adoration with the network's pick-up of "Celebrity Sew-off" and "Fashion Show". Sad but true, nobody really knows the maginitude of possibility of further exploitation of the fashion format.
Bravo is the newest and more popular example of the actual lack of innovation in television along with the termination of innovative shows like Mad Men. If there were more freedom within the broadcasting world and less monopolization over cable television by huge corporations perhaps one could argue for the abstract increase of innovation in this country.

RIAA meet your match?

2008-11-02T16:04:00.000-08:00

Charles Nesson, a professor at Harvard Law School is taking on the RIAA. Nesson, who is not one to hold back is opinions from what I can gather, is infuriated with the Association for "seeking to punish [the defendant]beyond any rational measure of the damage allegedly caused" an belief that sounds all too familiar. The defendant, Boston University student, Joel Tenenbaum, downloaded 7 songs illegally when he was in high school. The thing is, the RIAA sued him last year, but Tenenbaum refused to succumb to RIAA pressure, he is trying to stand up to their unnecessary intimidation, and Nesson is looking to help. Tenebaum is counter suing for personal damages, as well as any damages to his family, but more significantly perhaps, he is taking on the "Digital Theft Deterrence Act of 1999", which his lawyers are claiming as a criminal statute, punitively deterrent in its every substantive aspect. Nesson and crew are claiming that the point of the RIAA's suit is not receive compensation, but rather set the idea of a precedent, an "urban myth" of sorts, to scare internet users and for that reason they should not be able to continue with the suit. So we'll see what happens, but its nice to see someone taking them on, with a unique and hopefully effective standpoint.

links below:
http://gawker.com/5071150/insane-harvard-law-professor-promises-mp3-justice
http://www.p2pnet.net/story/17415

World Phuckin Champions

2008-11-02T13:12:00.000-08:00

At the parade honoring the Phillies world series win, 2nd baseman chase utley began by saying, "world champions, world fuckin champions." In a fan blog discussing the incident, someone suggested marketing a tshirt reading, "world phuckin champions." Since then, numerous people have been selling tshirts with this phrase that use the phillies logo type. I wonder who has the legal rights to this idea. Is it the first person who first wrote this phrase with the ph spelling? is it whoever started printing the shirts first? is it chase utley? Is it the phillies?Or is it MLB?

Link

Halloween Costumes and Copyright

2008-11-01T21:47:00.000-07:00

The incredible number of Joker costumes I saw on the street yesterday, caused me to consider Halloween costumes in the context of copyright and intellectual property. As I shopped for my costume a couple days ago, I couldn't help but notice the different companies marketing almost identical costumes for several characters. Consider these two versions of the Joker both produced by different companies.

The only real difference between these costumes is that one Joker wears black pants, while the other wears purple pinstripes (yikes). Now perhaps the Joker is a poor example because of his, shall we say, eclectic taste in clothing, but if someone decided one day to dress in a long purple jacket, green vest, purple gloves, and yellow spotted tie, would they be committing copyright infringement by stealing the image of the Joker? What exactly constitutes the costume of the Joker? Is it the color choice of his clothing, his mask, or is it the whole overall package? It turns out Halloween costumes are copyrightable, depending on the type of garment. The Copyright Act protects pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works. However, it does not protect utilitarian garments. Thus something like the Joker's mask, could be considered a sculpture or separate design element that can be protected, but something like a green vest or a tie, which function as items of clothing are defined as "useful articles" and therefore are not copyrightable. Interesting...

Jazz Palin

2008-10-30T23:44:00.000-07:00

This is an amazing example of creating a transformative work from the Palin, Couric interview we have all seen. The jazz pianist has punctuated Palin's quirky speech rhythms and inflections by harmonizing and arranging a song around her "melody." This is an excellent criticism of Palin, as it very effectively elucidates the absurdity in what she is saying. Works like these are brilliant ways to creatively build on artifacts of culture while bringing subtle criticism into the mix.

RIAA litigation campaign

2008-10-30T17:53:00.000-07:00

Hello, all. Anyone who is interested should check out the "Threat Level" blog at Wired...very solid. Anyway, they had a post today on the retrial of RIAA v. Thomas (you remember...the woman who was sued for $222,000 as a consequence of sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa network). The decision to rehear the case means that "the RIAA's 5-year-old copyright infringement litigation campaign has never been successful at trial." This comes as a shock, to me at least, considering the horror stories we've read and discussed in class surrounding the music industry's crackdown on file-sharing . Perhaps the RIAA is not as much of a formidable threat as we think it is? Check out the Plaintiff's supplemental brief PDF at the end.

MySpace Music

2008-10-30T11:29:00.001-07:00

I read yesterday on the CNET news blog that MySpace will begin to crack down on unauthorized uses of copyrighted material - this includes songs, film clips, television clips, etc. The author of the blog writes that MySpace will "use database technology from Gracenote to analyze uploaded songs and other material. Unauthorized material will be taken down, and users who repeatedly post such material will be blocked form the site."
I think this is an incredible example of what we spoke about last class - record companies and copyright owners emphasizing control over material, in an attempt to act as "gatekeeper" and assert power over social ideas. This, of course, is incredibly short sighted. MySpace has been a safe-haven for emerging artists and established ones alike; MySpace has been a forum, more or less, for musicians and users to share music, both copyrighted and not, with fans and friends. Music is a strong part of one's identity, and is thus a major component in any online social networking site.
This sudden crackdown, however, seems a bit too calculated - MySpace plans to open its own music store soon, in which users buy music from MySpace artists like they would through iTunes. Personally, I'm a little on the fence about this move, and would love to discuss it in class if we get an opportunity. On one hand, selling music is of course an important and potentially valuable revenue stream for any website. On the other, MySpace needs to worry about its credibility amongst youth fans. In selling music and cracking down on copyright infringement, MySpace is just another iTunes competitor whose "cool" ran out.

Brokeback to the Future

2008-10-30T11:05:00.000-07:00

In lieu of last class' discussion on 'slash' culture, I've posted a recontextualized mash-up trailer of sorts that uses music from Brokeback Mountain with clips and dialogue from Back to the Future. Videos like these are a natural evolution of the Kirk/Spock videos we watched in class, and it's clear this type of culture jamming requires a good deal of time, effort, and skill. It is also emblematic of a new trend has also seemingly arisen in which movie trailers are recut to provide a humorous new take on classic films (generally by shifting genres)...

2008-10-30T10:49:00.000-07:00

Parody of a parody! Check out this YouTube video coming from NYU law.

It's especially interesting to see how this video validates how much the original has become a part of our common culture. Rock on Aqua! It also brings to light how increasingly difficult it is to define originality. There is no doubt that this parody is creative and original, despite the fact that it draws so heavily upon another work (which drew upon another work...whoah, man). In a cultural moment of such heavy information flow consumption is more about contributing back to that process. More and more, originality can be found in the individualized way in which we do that.

briana berry

"Crimes of Fashion"

2008-10-30T09:47:00.000-07:00

It is a rare moment when I actually buy a fashion magazine. They're over-priced and usually so long that I can't get through them. I just buy them to look at the pretty pictures. But the last time I flipped through a Harper's Bazaar, something else caught my attention: a promotion for th website http://fakesareneverinfashion.com. The promotion had a picture of a pair of black stilettos with handcuffs around the heels. What's interesting about the website, though, is that it doesn't focus on the criminality of taking someone's idea and selling it for way cheaper, but instead on the social aspect by connecting fakes with drug trafficking, child labor, and even terrorism. They've turned buying pirated merchandise into a moral issue.

Forward Strides for the Internet

2008-10-30T09:11:00.000-07:00

So this article basically says that there has been growing pressure on certain websites to censor the content of its users, not necessarily for copyright violation, but just in general, and some of these sites are now fighting back starting a coalition against this type of government pressure. Companies as large as Google are a part of this. To me, this is a huge step forward in establishing what will and will not be able to be done on the Internet in the future. While this doesn't necessarily deal with copyright issues on the web, it is a step in the right direction, if companies are starting to fight back for the rights of its users. Maybe eventually this will translate to issues of copyright as well.

Photography + Copyright

2008-10-29T19:55:00.000-07:00

I was leafing through my modern art book the other night, cramming for the midterm, when I came across Honore Daumier's lithograph "Nadar Raising Photography to the Height of Art." In 1862, Daumier commemorated the court decision acknowledging photography as an at form protected by copyright law. This amusing lithograph is a commentary of photography's early struggles to be recognized as a fine art form. Daumier presents Nadar, one of photography's early masters, takes pictures with his camera on a hot air balloon as it rises over Paris. Daumier celebrates the rise of photography that was confirmed by the courts decision to make photography protected under copyright law.

I thought this was an interesting history lesson on copyright and its effect on the arts!

Google pays for copyright infringement

2008-10-29T19:24:00.000-07:00

On Tuesday a settlement was reached between Google and the Association of American Publishers after a three year battle in which the latter party sued Google for copyright infringement of millions of copyrighted books, which were scanned, digitized, and made available under the Google Print Library Project. The tech giant will have to pay up to $125 million dollars. The settlement calls for Google to pay $34.5 million for a nonprofit Book Rights Registry, pay fees for the millions of copyrighted books already scanned under the Google Print Library Project (which will be $60 per work), and cover the legal costs of the Guild's counsel (legal fees for suing party). While Google maintains that their library project offers an opportunity for the books to receive exposure, copyright holders had legitimate grounds for suing.

I cannot decide if the Google team took a chance in creating this project of mass copyright infringement thinking they could beat the system or if they truly thought there was nothing wrong with their idea. Of course, copyright maximalists will recognize such a project and have no mercy in seeking payment for copyright infringement.

Looks like Google is still tied up in another lawsuit...they are currently in a battle with Viacom. Google's YouTube video website is subject to a $1 billion lawsuit from Viacom, which is claiming damages in a lawsuit alleging that YouTube has illegally profited by tens of thousands of pirated clips from copyrighted shows. Do you think Google will learn its lesson now?

Fair Use Issues at UCSD

2008-10-29T19:21:00.000-07:00

http://ucsdguardian.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=10457&Itemid=4

UCSD is dealing with a site called postyourtest.com in which students can post old exams from professors for other students to download. UCSD exams account for 90% of the material on the site. Professors are now posing the complaint that the site is an infringent of their copyrights on their exams. UCSD entitles all professors to a copyright on their exams according to the article. I personally view this as UCSD overstepping its rights. An exam is not a form of expression. I'm not really sure how to label an exam. I'm inclined to say that this exam is akin to the one we discussed in class regarding the telephone book. One telephone book printer can not sue another for copyright infringement because it isn't possible to monopolize that kind of information nor claim any sort of ownership of it. Now if another telephone book maker were to copy the design and layout of another phone book we might be talking. Regardless of whether tests are even copyrightable or not, the owner of postyourtest.com is protected by the DMCA in his willingness to take down any material he posts that UCSD wants removed. What then is the big deal? Why are professors still considering legal against Demir Oral, the site's creator? I believe this is an intersection between ethics and law. I don't know that the way that Oral runs his site is necessarily wrong legally but I can understand the Professors concerns with the ethics of the situation at hand. They don't want students having this advantage at their disposal. They'd rather have them study the old-fashioned way. That being said if a resource is available to students that can benefit them is there not something to be said for them harnessing it. Perhaps I'm opening a can of worms with this but if we as a culture are ok to take download music and not find a problem in it then perhaps there's nothing wrong with using the internet to share tests? Ethics are not universal... one person might believe the recording industry is being cheated out of dollars while another may say they are not, one person might believe the sharing of exams online is wrong while another may not. I do believe this is an issues of ethics and because ethics are not universal I don't believe UCSD professors have the right to force their ethics on others.

Patents

2008-10-27T21:25:00.000-07:00

So, I was reading one of my google alert e-mails and I came across this article: http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2008/10/intellectual-pr.html and it reminded me about Heller's talk and book. He states that "A portion of my talk will focus on how patent law may react during a public health crisis. The reality is that in a pandemic situation, the patent rights covering important treatments will be ignored. Under TRIPS, during a national emergency would-be patent infringement becomes a legitimate unauthorized use. At some later point, the patent holder should receive payment based on "the economic value of the authorization." In all likelihood, however, that ex-post payment will be a small fraction of the potential monopoly profits that could have been earned." Well, if under a national emergency patent infringement is no longer punished and is legitimated, well who is to say that epidemics, diseases, etc (Cancer/Alzheimer's) should not be covered under the same rules. These problems run rampant and should be considered a public health crisis! It just doesn't make sense and even though Michal Heller said that there are no exceptions in areas such as creating treatments and prevention why should there be an exception to a public health crisis?

2008-10-27T20:01:00.001-07:00

With the presidential election creeping upon us (one week! Yikes!), the number of “Obama” merchandise being sold on the streets of New York (particularly around Union Square) is grow exponentially. While some of the merchandise have their own versions of pictures of Obama or the Obama signs, many are just simply copies of Obama campaign materials. The most commonly copied image, of course, is the Obama “Change” poster with his face by Shephard Fairey. Now, while I don’t know this for sure, I’m almost positive that image of Obama is copyrighted. However, the Obama campaign has yet (& is unlikely too) to crack down on this “illegal” use of a (most likely) copyrighted image and/or this use of his name and likeness without explicit permission. (Although, who knows…maybe it is legal, maybe they’re paying the Obama camp a portion of each proceed, but that’s doubtful). However, since the majority of this press in the forms of shirts, tote bags, etc is largely a form of good (& free!) press, its unlikely that anyone will crack down on the (not that anyone in the Obama Campaign probably has time to this anyways).

But perhaps, if the merchandise was negative (not that anti-Obama merchandise would sell very well in NY anyways), someone from the Obama camp might’ve already gone down there to shut it down. But other the other hand, whether the merchandise is pro-Obama or pro-McCain, one can argue that the merchandise stimulates conversation & debate about the election, which ultimately, Americans like to think is what American should be all about. Censoring negative merchandise endorsing or attacking either candidate by claims of copyright infringement thus limiting debate and conversation, is no way of encouraging dialogue. Thus, this just another example of how copyright can sometimes limit out everything around us without us noticing.