Group items tagged

The web radio service's filings show that over half of its revenue (approximately $45 million) was used to pay copyright owners, an amount so high that it expects to have a virtually non-existent profit margin through to 2012. Though the company has grown in the past year and copyright fee expenditures don't represent as large a chunk of the earnings as last year (when it was 60%), concern remains over its ability to make ends meet. Royalty payments are principally made to: SoundExchange (which receive 45 of Pandora's revenue alone), BMI, ASCAP, and SESAC. The company is also looking to "go global" but has encountered problems, as its business model is based on US copyright laws. 

copyright should not act as an obstacle to small businesses on the internet!!!

NY federal judge ruled against google last week in their copyright case, having  "[tossed] out a 165-page settlement reached in 2008 between Google and authors and publishers groups". This article discusses Google's 2009 plan for a global digitized library and the lawsuits that have surrounded it.

The article is recent from March 25th (LA Times, Business Section). It's discussing Google's history regarding the e-book controversy. Judge Chin's decision forces us to think about what an online digital library might look like without infringing parties, like Google. As noted in the article, Google was attempting to use "orphan works," whose right holders could not be found. As a result, Google would be using the works without being held accountable under copyright law. Here's the original document, filed by the U.S. Supreme Court, on 3/22/2011: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/74854-chin-ruling

Althou this isn't about copyrit, I think this is an interesting article to look at as we begin our own Wikipedia project.

Some claim that the digital music industry is not going to grow any larger than it already is--mostly due to piracy occurring online. Inspired by the U.S. Senate, which shut down LimeWire last year, other countries across Europe and Asia are looking to revisit copyright laws to crack down on piracy and promote growth in the digital music industry, as well as lead a shift away from monopolizing applications, like iTunes, and redirect sales to alternative subscription music service websites.

Personality rights, a subset of intellectual property/copyright, is a major issue among players in the NCAA.  

Does this open-source repository hurt sales? Can the website serve as an exception based on educational purposes and the high cost of sheet music?

The author recounts when he and his wife used their camera phones to snap a few pages from a decor book in Barnes and Noble for ideas to show their contractor. Do you think it is possible to regulate this kind of copying and do you think a cell phone photo of a page or two from a book justifies legal punishment?

"Do they treat piracy as part of the cost of doing business in the Internet age, or do they try and recoup piracy losses from paying customers by raising prices?"

"Surveys have found the number of people who think digital copyright infringement is wrong has increased from 34% in 2007 to 54% in 2010." The keyword here being "think." Just because we know it's wrong doesn't mean we'll stop doing it.

I thought this was interesting because whoever wins no longer has the right to his own face. I thought it would be an interesting case study considering the interplay between life-rights, copyright of the Ken doll, and any other contractual restrictions that would go with winning this kind of competition.

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

Wow. It really is fascinating how people attempt to manipulate facts for personal gain through legal action. Now good business sense is collusion? My personal favorite comment on the article: "Good luck to him, he's 3 ignorant judges and 15 years in lawsuits away from winning"