Group items tagged

Viacom is maintaining its 2007 billion dollar lawsuit against Google (as it acquired YouTube in 2006), despite the latter continuous fervent denial. Though "Google argues that when YouTube promptly took down tens of thousands of videos after Viacom gave it notice, YouTube was within provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act." Viacom is stating that the infringement is taking the form of violating the 1998 Copyright Act. Which holds both content owners and systems operators responsible for the protection of copyrighted content online. After reading this article, a few questions come to mind: What can Google do to appease and keep the "integrity" of YouTube? and Isn't it interesting that Viacom only filed this $1 billion lawsuit AFTER Google had acquired YouTube? What can we say about interested parties possibly abusing copyright law?

Should Google be doing more to protect original content that is made available on YouTube?

Though this video is interesting, the comment thread gives a great look at people's thoughts on current copyright laws.

Since we were talking about band copyright a little last class, I figured I'd post this. Dave Matthews Band allows concert go-ers to record live performances/shows. Many DMB fans post these to different fan websites such as antsmarching.org for everyone to download. DMB feels that "tape trading will foster greater interaction within the fan community."

I'm absolutely with DMB on this. If the music is for the fans and the purpose is to have them relate to it, why not have them interact as well? Some cases of video removal for "copyright infringement" on youtube baffle me, because they not cut off publicity and forum discussions about musicians and their performances, but also occasionally cause resentment or negative feelings towards the artists. Those, in my opinion, are instances of copyright protecting so much that it becomes detrimental.

This is an insightful video, a decent watch.

The Twilight poster and album cover have an undeniable resemblance to each other, however, I think Summit's interference and influence on pulling his music from YouTube and iTunes was unnecessary. If Summit believed that the artist had stolen material for his album cover, then the company should have sued him instead. Also, if Twilight had inspired his music, then technically, this is not copyright infringement. I do not think that the music itself was a violation of intellectual property.

This report from Business Week highlights some recent developments in intellectual property news. Chrysler is actually suing a Detroit clothing company for trademark infringement on the slogan "Imported from Detroit." The saying was introduced in a Chrysler commercial that aired during the Super Bowl this year, featuring Eminem. Chrysler brings the case to court with the justification that the phrase is intended to indicate "luxury" to customers, in addition to the fact that millions were invested to produce the commercial. As a result, t-shirts with the slogan are misleading to the public, the automaker claims. Do you think Chrysler has a strong case? Here's the original commercial, if you haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI6puP3cClM

Google worries that the 2009 ruling against isoHunt will affect its own services and services of its website, YouTube. While Google believes isoHunt is liable, they would like the court to be more precise. They would like to see isoHunt charged with only specific instances of inducing. Google is also pushing to see isoHunt protected by safe harbor under DMCA. "It's clear this court thinks the DMCA online safe harbors only insulate against direct infringement, not secondary infringement," writes intellectual property attorney Eric Goldman on his Technology & Marketing Law Blog. "The interplay between the safe harbors and secondary infringement remains a multi-billion statutory ambiguity."