Group items tagged

That impulsive duck-face kissy photo you took of yourself and your friend at the Apple store to test out the new iPad's camera may be destined for an art gallery wall.

What Andy Clarke is trying to say is that although twitter is a very social site, it can not be used to its full potential because not as many ideas are exchanged. This is because people are afraid of their ideas being stolen, but with this new creative commons copyright partnership, people will never have to worry anymore. It allows people top share ideas and both get the amount of credit they deserve. Although this can be unnecessary for basic, "I just got milk at the store," tweets, it will be amazing for people who want to share ideas whether, they're intellectual or not.

Clarke is a world renown British web designer and author.

This article was written by Chris Snyder an email author for Wired on February 20, 2009

Date issued: April 17th, 2009. This article from wired.com by David Kravets deals with a lawsuit filed by students against turnitin.com. The students claimed this website was breaching the copyrights the students owned for the essays they wrote. There was a countersuit filed against one of the students accusing because the student in question was already cheating the essays he was writing. This article discusses the problem of whether your work is really yours and is just another step in the process of trying to make rules to govern the internet.

This article discusses the chance of the U.S. Copyright Act of 1976 coming back to create tumult in the musical business. This could be caused due to provisions that allow authors or their heirs to terminate copyright grants.The Copyright Act includes two sets of rules which are If an artist or author sold a copyright before 1978, they or their heirs can take it back 56 years later. If the artist or author sold the copyright during or after 1978, they can terminate that grant after 35 years.

Universal Music told a federal judge here Friday that takedown notices requiring online video-sharing sites to automatically remove content need not consider whether videos are protected by the "fair use" doctrine.

In the latest example of finding media innovation where you'd least expect it, CBS is embedding a video player in a print ad in Entertainment Weekly that will serve up a buffet of its fall TV lineup.

An Associated Press reporter's official reprimand over an innocuous comment on his Facebook page has sparked the ire of union officials.

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.

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.

LimeWire, the popular music downloading site, has been shut down. A judge determined that the "downloading or sharing copyrighted content without authorization is illegal." LimeWire will negotiate with the major music companies about licensing deals to offer the legal sale of music. The company is now liable for damages because of their violations of the copyright laws. Issued: October 27, 2010

There is a law, that allows "any blog or other website to register a DMCA takedown agent with the U.S. Copyright Office, an obscure bureaucratic prerequisite to enjoying a legal "safe harbor" from copyright lawsuits over third-party posts, such as reader comments." This is a reason why websites like youtube can exist. However, there is a loophole to law. A company based on Las vegas bought copy right for the Las Vegas Review-Journal, just for the purpose of suing any websites who have failed to pay 105 dollars and register with United States Copyright Office.

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.

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.

Through things you've searched, videos you've watched and e-mails you've sent, google creates a profile about you, whether you have a google account or not. Though google claims it uses your profile to make its services work better, it actually uses this information to sell you to advertisers. By the things you search, google decides what advertisements to show.