Group items tagged

Issued: March 2009. Big companies are starting to crack down on copyright infringements. With over 15 lawsuits in 2007, the number of lawsuits targeted against blogs has started to rapidly rise. The author, Brian Stelter, is a writer for New York Times who's main focus is on television and the digital media. This article seems to be aimed at the big companies who the author believes are unfairly digging into to copyright laws. The article mentions a lot of disputes such as the ones between New York Times and Gate House Media, Silicon Alley Insider and The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press and All Headlines News and others. Most of the websites getting sued were blogs or newspaper websites that quoted other people's works, assuming it would be okay under the "fair use" statute of copyright laws.

i went to the New York Times online to search the term, "copyright" to get an article relating to copyright issues or infringement. this article by Brian Stelter was published on March 1st, 2009. Stelter is a journalist for the New York Times. Stelter sides with the people who claim to be getting copyrighted. He bases the majority of his article against the bloggers and other online publishes "who seem to be on the rise." He also questions when excerpting from an article becomes illegal copying. Although he mostly sides with the people claiming to be copyrighted he also sheds light on those bloggers and online publishers whom give credit to those sites they excerpted information from. Statler keeps bringing up the issue of "excerpting to find value" in which online publishers combine articles to validate their thesis. In the end, Statler shows both sides of the story and doesn't leave out any information regarding the thoughts of both parties.

By BRIAN STELTER Published: March 1, 2009 Brian Stelter focuses on a quotation from the Silicon Alley Insider which quoted a quarter of Peggy Noonan's Wall Street Journal. "We thank Dow Jones in advance for allowing us to bring it to you." The editor added "in advance" because Dow Jones, the publisher of The Journal, had not given the blog permission to use the column. With this particular instance of copyright infringement and others, Stetler brings light to the fact that permission isn't being given between different industries when taking direct quotations or titles from that industries publication. "Some media executives are growing concerned that the increasingly popular curators of the Web that are taking large pieces of the original work - a practice sometimes called scraping - are shaving away potential readers and profiting from the content." He also brings up the numerous lawsuits that arise because of copyright infringement.

An article from BNO News has recently reported that LimeWire has been shut down by a U.S. court on claims that the site was used for infringement. LimeWire is notorious for allowing its users to download music without paying for the file, which begs the question, is this legal? The Recording Industry Association of American, which represents several important record labels such as Sony, EMI, Universal, and Warner filed a lawsuit against LimeWire in 2006 stating that the company was allowing downloading of illegal music, violating the terms of the music's copyright. Since these record labels own the copyrights to the majority of the music that was being distributed, they were losing money and business because they were not getting paid for the use of their music. Lime Group, the company that owns LimeWire, continues to function otherwise, it is just this subsidiary that has been ceased to conduct business. Although the future seems bleak for LimeWire, its CEO remains optimistic.

On October 27, 2010 a very popular music sharing application called Limewire was shut down due to copyright infringement. BNO news reported the story to wireupdate.com and the a few record labels like SOny, EMI, Universal and Warner filed a lawsuit against Limewire in 2006 so this is nothing new for the file sharing company. The Lime Group CEO and owner of Limewire George Searle said "challenging time, we are excited about the future." So he seems to have a good outlook on the future eeven though his company is going through this touch time.

This article focuses on the theft intellectual property being a civil offense instead of a white collar crime, as inventor of clockwork radio Trevor Baylis believes. Baylis argues that, '"If I stole from you, then I would probably go to jail. But if I were to steal your intellectual property, which potentially could be worth billions of pounds, it would be only a civil case - and, even then, most of us can't afford to pay 350 an hour for a lawyer.'" Many other countries have made intellectual property a crime, such as Japan and the United States. The article points out many CEOs, artists, and inventors who are quoted in telling the power and value of an idea and of an invention. Despite this, UK authorities still believe that infringement of intellectual property is best dealt as a civil offense instead of a criminal offense. Baylis believes that "the inventor or entrepreneur will not gain true recognition" for there work if the UK places infringement as a civil offense.

Embedding Youtube videos into your website can be a dangerous thing, as it might not be you that's uploaded a copyright infringing video, but it can be you that accidentally embeds a Youtube clip that is infringing made by someone else, into your website. The law against this is: Any time you incorporate a copyrighted work into a site without the rightsholders' consent, you're potentially liable to be sued. Because people are seeing that on your website, it doesn't matter if it's on Youtube or not, or whether you made it or not, you embedded it somewhere else. It also does not matter whether the person knew it was copyright infringement or not. If an innocent embedder were to be taken to court, they could still be fined up to $30,000. However, because of Youtube's copyright infringement policy, it can remove the copyrighted work from Youtube and the websites it was embedded in. Also, there would be little gain for the rightsholder if the person with the website they sued couldn't afford a lawsuit, which would hardly be worth their time. Also, there are precautions that the embedder should take as well, to ensure that even if they do post copyrighted material, they won't really be potential candidates to be sued.

This article was issued October 27, 2010. This article was written by a frequent writer, David Kravets. It was edited by Kevin Poulsen and contributions to the article were made by Kim Zetter and Ryan Singel. This article is discussing the "loophole" that was found in order to avoid copyright infringement lawsuits. All that was needed was the small payment of $105. After paying this, if any information found on the cite that was not from the author, such as comment or a blog, the writer of the article cannot be sued. This way, the owners of the article would not be responsible for any information that they themselves do not post. This may seem quite silly, but keeping in mind the danger of being sued for copyright infringement for $150,000, this is a very necessary $150. According to the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act), a website will receive complete immunity from the threat of being sued by something that was posted by a viewer. The author does not clearly show any bias towards the issue. However interpreting the language that he uses, we can infer that he agrees and supports this act. Therefore websites cannot be held responsible for what their viewers post.

After 4 years of debate between the popular file sharing service LimeWire and the RIAA, LimeWire has been officially shut down by Judge Kimba Wood for its sharing of unauthorized copyright material. Wood ruled that the company behind LimeWire did not take appropriate steps to prevent its users from committing mass copyright infringement. The question posed now is where LimeWire's 50 million different monthly users will turn to share and download files.

Issued on April 6, 2010 in San Francisco. This article was written by Miguel Helft in the New York Times. He is a well known author for the New York Times that covers Internet companies such as Google or Yahoo. This article discusses how photographers and other artists filed a lawsuit against google for the mass copying their work. The artists claimed that they were not adequately compensated by google for the use of their work. Google was given permission from the visual artists to scan their work onto the website, however the artists feel that this partnering program with Google turned out to be unfair. Google is now being sued for copyright infringement. This article is informative to all people because it shows that even largely popular websites like Google may not be as trustworthy as perceived.

The article is about a case regarding a violation to the Copyright Act. Whitney Harper, a high school cheerleader, participated in infringing activity on LimeWire between the ages 14-16, claiming that she thought she was simply internet radio streaming. With this "innocent infringer's" defense, she is requesting a $200 fine per song to the Recording Industry of America as opposed to the Copyright Act's minimum $750 per song fine. This would result in a total payment of $7,400 rather than $27,750. The final decision has not yet been made, and the justices of the Supreme Court have the option of taking the case and issuing a ruling, or declining to hear it. The author takes a very neutral viewpoint on the issue, expressing the opinions on both sides of the case. He presents the information in a very factual rather than biased way, and concludes the article in a non-opinionated manner. David Kravets is a technologist, political scientist, humorist, and reporter.

Date issued: January 7, 2010. An article from Law Vibe. Written by C.C. at International Law News/Lawyer Lifestyle. The article was written about what in the writer's opinion were the top ten biggest copyright infringement lawsuits between 2000 and 2009. Cases such as "Napster shuts down", "Apple sues Pystar", and UMG and Viacom take on Veoh and Youtube" lead the article. A reoccurring theme in the business of copyright lawsuits seems to be illegal file sharing online. Many websites that provided options for illegally downloading music have been sued or shut down over the years, including Napster and Pirate Bay. Modeling agencies such as Perfect 10 sued Google over copyrighted pictures of their models showing up online, the courts however ruled this fair use and the case has since been closed. This article shows a brief history of how copyrighting has become a central legal issue over the past decade and how various companies and defendants have dealt with the cases presented to them.

Motorola and Apple have filed many lawsuits against each other regarding stealing of each others Intellectual Property. Motorola sued Apple in early October claiming they violated eighteen of their patents regarding

This article basically takes note of the fact that in this world today, originality is not really that abundant, a prospect which can be noticed when one takes a look at, for example, the remakes of The A-team and The Karate Kid over the summer. More specifically, the article deals with the controversy that Kanye West faces with Virginia rapper, Vince P. (Vincent Peters) on the basis that West had stolen the basis for his 2007 hit "Stronger" from Mr. Peter's 2006 song "Stronger".

The popular band black eyed peas is facing dual lawsuits for two of their popular songs that were released in their new album the E.N.D. This article explains the details of who an why those singer/songwriters are suing and point out a pattern that both the peas and there recording groups, universal records and universal music group, have engaged in "a pattern and practice of intentional copyright infringement with respect to the unlawful copying of songs of unknown or lesser-known artists." This article portrays the ongoing pattern of copyright lawsuits that have arisen due to advancements in the digital music business, and is just one example of many high profile lawsuits with millions of dollars involved. (The two songs that they are accused of stealing combined for a total of 10.7 digital units sold).