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

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

Films by Hitchcock, books by Virginia Woolf and Picasso's Guernica--just to name a few--are some of the works that are no longer readily accessible to the public. In a new case, Golan v. Holder, orchestra conductors, teachers and film archivists, are fighting for the right to perform, adapt and distribute creative works that they relied on for years without having to consider copyrights and their respective fees. Should these famous works be returned to the public domain?

As soon as the photograph is taken, Lady Gaga requests that the copyright is turned over to her. Unlike other artists, like Madonna or Radiohead, Gaga is limiting how photos of her performances are distributed. Is this demand justified and if so, does it exclude people who cannot afford to attend live performances?

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.

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.

Companies are suing other websites that fail to hyperlink copyrighted materials. However, it seems excessive if it's just over a single photo.

Do you think it's necessary to define all that is public or private on the Internet? Should this distinction determine whether or not we may quote these online works (ie. Facebook, Twitter, e-mail content)?

Should Google have to pay for its content on Google News?

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?

A reference to Section 512 of Digital Millennium Copyright Act's "safe harbors" exception from my blog entry.

Dunlap, Grubb & Weaver is going after individuals who have pirated films like last year's Oscar winner, 'Hurt Locker,' off of P2P file-sharing sites. Usually, the firm settles for a fine from $1,500 to $3,000. Do you think this fine range fits the crime?

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

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?

Lady Gaga's new single has already reached the top of the charts, but avid listeners and fans are debating whether or not her work is completely original. Although some claim that it's possible to hear the similarities, others claim that "Born This Way" and Madonna's "Express Yourself" are completely different creative works. Either way, there's a possibility for an infringement suit. The article mentions that an Arizona band sued Daughtry for copying an original tune called "Tonight," while Coldplay was sued for "Viva La Vida," which was allegedly ripped off of the title of another album.

On Leno, Gaga notes that Madonna approves of the song. This brings forth an even more interesting question. If an artist doesn't press charges for copying, then can it still be considered copyright infringement?

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.