Group items tagged

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

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?

ivi says they can rebroadcast under Section 111

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.

I think Mr. Gordon may have a good chance of winning the lawsuit. If you look at the original picture he drew, you can see that it was more than just an idea that was taken and used to make Kung Fu Panda. He even titled his own drawings "Kung Fu Panda Power." When comparing this to Rihanna's infringement for her S&M music video, I feel that Rihanna has a better chance of escaping charges for infringement than does Dreamworks, because Rihanna was able to take photos and recreate them originally into a different form of media. Kung Fu Panda, on the other hand, is an animated film, which means that these photos weigh more heavily because they were not really originally transformed, they are the same pictures, just moving. This will be an interesting case to follow.

This is an insightful video, a decent watch.

It's not copyright per se, but it's an interesting use of creative commons.

Great response on the presentation we heard today about fashion and intellectual property!

Saw this! Was REALLY interesting!