Group items tagged

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

It appears that even professors often overlook the legality of distributing copyrighted materials. Although it's no question that fair use applies to a small excerpt or one chapter of a book, the legality of distributing multiple chapters or an entire work is, what this article calls, "cheating a legitimate economic interest." Students might disagree based on the cost of textbooks and course readers, though from the standpoint of the publisher and author, if an academic intends to use an entire work, it should not be copied, but purchased as the entire original work.

My roomates know this guy and he mentioned that he is talking to the original creators of the film. I wonder if they will take any legal copyright action against him.

After reading the article it's interesting to see how his classmates/fellow filmmakers have reacted to this. We haven't heard anything about legal action being taken by the original creators, but it seems that this guy has been taken to the people's court!

In the bottom corner of the page, there is an ad that keeps running to the tune of "Spoonful of Sugar" from Mary Poppins.  The chances that it's legally licensed?  Super sweet-n-low.

"A federal appeals court upheld a ruling that EchoStar infringed TiVo patents for digital recording technology, raising hopes the long legal battle could end with a TiVo victory."

The smart-phone is not only hardware, but software, which has already been patent-protected. In this competitive phone market, where Android takes the lead with 32% of the market, the onset of these legal battles began when Nokia accused Apple of infringing on its patents. The article maps out which companies are suing who and why.

What can you do if that novel you've been looking to read isn't available as an e-book? Well, it turns out that Japanese companies are actually taking books and scanning them for their customers as PDF files compatible with iPad, iPhone, Kindle and Nook. In Japan, copyright agreements depend on the author, and in turn the secretary general of Japan Book Publishers Association suggests all of this activity may be legal. It would be interesting to see this service offered in the U.S. and the copyright infringement cases that might arise.

The Country music duo the "Bellamy Brothers" are upset over Britney song title's resemblance to their 1979 hit but it seem they will not be suing the popstar.

I know that the Bellamy Brothers specifically mention the title, but I think they would have a much stronger case on the basis of "fixing" the double entendre within the song: the BB's lyrics are "If I said you had a beautiful body / would you hold it against me" vs. Britney's "If I said I want your body now / would you hold it against me." That's pretty startlingly similar, and even if you can't copyright ideas, you can copyright the expression of those ideas... and there's enough overlap between the two to be persuasive.

Now that I know copying a song title doesn't count as copyright infringement, I wonder what percentage of a songs lyrics must be exactly the same as another song in order for that to count as copyright infringement. And even if the lyrics happen to be the same, can an artist still avoid a lawsuit if his or her melodic line/ chordal progression/ instrumentation is different enough to make the song "original"? I'm guessing that its a case-by-case thing...

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.

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?

Rebuttal of Turow's op ed, referenced in Andrea's blog post last week.

Sahi, a commuter science major at Princeton, Class of 2010, was able to collect more concrete data regarding shared torrents or large files across the sharing site. Looking at the identification numbers of anonymous users, this February, Sahi found that perhaps only ten out of a 1000 files were actually legal. Although it is a known fact that BitTorrent contains pirated material, this project will help identify which files are being accessed most frequently, which may ultimately aid in efforts to prevent piracy.

Saw this! Was REALLY interesting!

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"

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?