Trick or treat?

Due to it being Halloween I decided to do my blog about copyrights involving costumes, party themes, and Halloween music. When I think of good Halloween parties I think of crazy houses that are decked out in spider webs, black lights, blasting music, and an arrangement of costumes. When it comes to getting the creepy background music many people often go on to illegal downloading sites. This year the website http://procedura.net1zen.com/ offers free creepy legal music. “Well this year, we can all focus on bigger and better things, thanks to a set of demonic artists who believe that it is in their interest to give away some of their sonic concoctions for free, because it will help them to cast their spell on a wider audience.” Another Halloween scandal would be the inappropriate costumes that were being sold at Amazon and Halloween this year. These costumes suggest discrimination and racism slanders. The costumes were coming across as some races and genders should be put in jail due to being different. Many people were outraged by these costumes and are trying to get a petition out to sue any place that sold these costumes this October. Overall have a fun, safe, copyright Halloween!

 

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/10/31/creative-commons-hal.html

http://www.ufwaction.org/campaign/halloween2009

 

Amy

Jackson Browne, Republicans Settle Copyright Case

         This week I am going to write about a copyright infringement case between Senator John McCain and musician Jackson Browne. Browne sued McCain for copyright infringement, false endorsement, and violating his right to publicity when the McCain campaign used Browne’s hit “Running On Empty” in one of his campaign ads. Browne’s lawyer stated that in order for the McCain campaign to use the song they would have had to seek permission from Browne and again from Warner Bros., but they did not even try to get permission from either. After McCain’s lawyers repeated attempts to dismiss the case by stating their use was fair use were continuously denied they decided to settle outside of court for an undisclosed amount and an apology. Browne’s lawyer states that this settlement, though not a binding ruling sets direct legal precedent, can hopefully be used as an education effort to generate awareness of the copyright laws.
         Later in a statement announcing the settlement they apologized and stated that McCain himself “had no knowledge of, or involvement in, the creation or distribution of the video” and “does not support or condone any actions taken by anyone involved in his 2008 presidential election campaign that were inconsistent with artists’ rights or the various legal protections afforded to intellectual property.”
         After the settlement Browne stated “I certainly hope that the fact that these issues were raised and that the judgment was in our favor will give people who are intending to (use music without permission) pause and caution,” said Browne, who’s previously sued others for using his songs, particularly “Running On Empty,” in advertisements. “I hope that it will be a cautionary case where people will say, ‘We better not. They’ll sue you…’
         This case is another example of what copyright law should be doing. McCain’s campaign broke the law and used a song without even trying to seek permission. I must agree with Browne in that hopefully with cases like these in which the victims of copyright infringement win, people will be more cautious and actively seek permission or better follow the laws for fair use. I also like how this article shows that nobody is immune to the law and that even politicians can fall to copyright laws. In the end, this is a great example that when trying to use others works in your own you need to get permission or you will be sued.

original article can be viewed here.

The Associated Press hates Obama (or at least his photograph)

Change came to the United States in January 2009 with the inauguration of the first African American President, Barack Obama. Whether that change was for better or worse is debated, and only time will tell. However, I believe that no matter our political affiliation, we can all agree that change is needed in the copyright industry. Copyright not only applies to music and film, but photos as well.

On April 27, 2006, a photographer by the name of Mannie Garcia snapped a photo of an up-and-coming senator from Illinois. This photograph of Obama was destined for great things, but not under Mannie Garcia, or her employers, The Associated Press, but rather, under Los Angeles street artist Shepard Fairey, who computerized the image using a “copy-and-paste style to create the highly recognized “Hope” image of Barack Obama”. This image was to appear globally. On t-shirts, bumper stickers, buttons, and posters. It was everywhere. Thus, it is not surprising that the “rightful” owners of the photo cried foul. According this article featured in WIRED, “The nation’s oldest and largest operating news-gathering organization sought unspecific damages from Fairey”. In my opinion, all The Associated Press was after was money. Fairey, however, fought back. He filed a preemptive lawsuit seeking to have a court rule that his computerized image was a fair use of the photo.

The Associated Press claimed that Fairey used the photo to “exploit it for his own personal benefit”. In his rebuttal, Fairey had the following to say: “I am disappointed the Associated Press is persisting in its misguided accusations of copyright infringement. I believe that my use of the Mannie Garcia photo as a reference, which I acknowledged off the bat as an AP photograph, falls under “fair use” provisions laid out in the law.
I am even more disappointed the AP is now trying to distort the facts surrounding my work. They suggest my purpose in creating the poster was to merchandise it and make money. It wasn’t. My entire purpose in creating the poster was to support Obama and help get him elected. Money was never the point. The proceeds that were generated from the poster were used to create more posters and donated to charity.
I look forward to disproving the AP’s accusations once and for all and upholding the free expression rights at stake here.”

I know that was a long quote, but I wanted to include it so that I may help convey the absurdity of this situation. Copyright lawsuits are out of hand theses days. That picture is one of the most iconic of the year, and The Associated Press did next to nothing to help its creation, yet they feel they own the rights. This situation is identical to the one plaguing the music industry, in which big and powerful, faceless companies attempt to suppress creativity. I could understand if they believed that Fairey was making an unfair profit, but he wasn’t, he was doing something that he believed in. I think that’s what has been lost to so many, the passion. It all about the money these days; and until that changes, the future looks grim.

This article can be found at: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/ap-blasts-obama/

Facebook Taken to Court…Bring Your Camera!

Unfortunately, the title is true. Two companies are taking Facebook, the well known social networking site, to court for copyright infringement. These companies claim that Facebook infringes on “patents related to personal pages and establishing human relationships.” The two companies involved are Tele-publishing Inc and Mekiki Co Ltd.

Tele-publishing Inc, a Boston based company, believes Facebook is violating its patent on providing a personal page. This patent in itself is generic. A personal page can be found on almost any social networking site, or any other website for that matter. The only problem Facebook faces is due to its privacy settings. Facebook’s privacy settings allow it to control which people can view a page, and how much of that page they can view. Although this makes its site seem safer, it could be seen as copyrighting the technology Tele-publishing Inc uses. They use similar technology with their online dating a personal sites too. Either way, I still find this method to be a common service in every social networking site. I would find it very odd if only one website was allowed to use it.

The other company is Mekiki Co Ltd, a Japanese social networking site. Mekiki Co has the patent for human relationships registering system (establishing human relationships). Everything covered in this patent basically applies to all social networking sites. If Mekiki were to win against Facebook, there would be nothing stopping them from taking down every other social networking site. If you ask me, I feel the same way as I did with the first company’s claim. I feel like this is patent is covering technology used by too many companies/websites. I don’t think it’s fair that one website could own something that almost every other site already uses. The shouldn’t have the right to own it. This kind of technology should be placed in the public domain, where everyone can use it.

Personally, I would be devastated if Facebook lost this case. Not only do I love F-booking it up with my friends, but I would find it upsetting if our government would allow this to happen. One social networking site should not be the only one with the rights to use personal pages, or selective controlling on pages. Also, if Mekiki won and was able to take down multiple social networking sites, it would end up keeping people apart instead of bringing them together. And isn’t it the point of a social networking site to bring people together?

-Andrew Hogan

Technology Works to Help the Environment

Dairy farms in Vermont try to help out the environment as well as their pockets by using the methane gas produced by the cow’s manure to generate electricity that is then used to help power the farm. Methane gas is one of the leading contributors to the greenhouse effect that has taken hold of our planet and the various climate changes that have taken place over recent years. Westminster Farms Inc. and Green Mountain Power (GMP) are the corporations that actually convert the gas into electricity, and they do this with an anaerobic digester which heats and breaks down the cattle feces, allowing the methane to be released all at once; the gas is then used to generate the electricity . But manure doesn’t just pollute the air, it also creates runoff which pollutes local water supplies. So some farms have taken the green idea a step further. Some farmers have taken the liquid runoff and used it as fertilizer to help grow and produce crops. As for the solid leftover material, farmers have transformed into and used it as cattle bedding, which actually saves the farm about $80,000 each year on bedding which is normally sawdust.

Personally I think these innovations are a great way for the farming communities to help the environment and make use of an otherwise useless substance. Especially with the current economy, low-paying jobs that our country depends on, like farming, need to find ways to keep themselves up-and-running.

-Cullen Lawlor

“Jessica Seinfield wins plagiarism case against her”

http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/books/09/10/seinfeld.cookbook/index.html

Just last month, an article on CNN.com was posted, entitled, “Jessica Seinfield wins plagiarism case against her.” U.S. District Court Judge, Laura Taylor Swain threw out claims that Jessica Seinfield had plagarized her cookbook, called “Deceptively Delicious: Simple Secrets to Get Your Kids Eating Good Food,” but left open claims of defamation for Jerry Seinfield. The judge said that there was little facts proving the claims, and that Seindfield’s book had a different feel. Jessica Seinfield’s lawyer noted what a victory Jessica had won.

Missy Chase Lapine, author of “The Sneaky Chef: Simple Strategies for Hiding Healthy Foods in Kids’ Favorite Meals,” filed the claims in 2007. Her cookbook was posted in April 2007, six months before Seinfield’s. Lapine’s laywer, Howard B. Miller, said his client might appeal this copyright case.

Lapine’s claims against Jerry Seinfield remain unsolved. Apparently he “jokingly” called her an assassin on “The Late Show with David Letterman” in 2007. Lapine says she might not be treated fairly in the courtroom as she is competing with a powerful opponent.

Lapine is a 45-year-old mother of two who says she has created two sequels to her original cookbook.

Shield Law Compromise Would Protect Reporters and Bloggers

Over the past few years reporters and bloggers alike have suffered from hefty “fines [and even] imprisonment” for “[refusing] to identify confidential sources” used in their work. Nevertheless, as Charlie Savage describes in this New York Times article, their maybe hope rising on the horizon for correspondents in the US.

Recently, the “the Obama administration and key Democrats” have concocted a “proposal” for a ” media shield law” that would potentially protect reporters and bloggers. However, since this law has not yet circulated through Congress many remain anxious and question its passage. This “shield law” entails many aspects that require more consideration. First of all, the extent of the protection that a reporter or blogger may receive will all depend on the “type of case involved.” Hence, between civil cases and ordinary cases a judge will have the authority to perform a “balancing test” to determine what information a reporter should disclose if he/she (the judge) deems it to be in the “public interest.” In other words, reporters and bloggers will be protected as long as in certain circumstances such as threats to “national security or public interest” they do reveal valuable knowledge for the benefit of all. This “compromise” to the “shield law” makes much sense because there should be no reason for reporters to keep a potential terrorist or a criminal purposely incognito. Thus, according to Senator Charles E. Schumer, this “shield law” is a good balance between providing a “strong protection for reporters” and at the same time “making sure that the government can still do the job of protecting its citizens.”

Furthermore, since most of the news media organizations and companies are also required to “sign off” on this proposed law, opponents of this law state that “news media should not be allowed to decide whether exposing national security secrets is justified or receive special privileges.” Yet again, some deem that reporters’ sources are elements that are often beneficial for the country’s security while others ascertain that reporters need to have the rights and freedom to protect their sources if they so desire. Nonetheless, according to Arlen Specter (Democrat of Pennsylvania), “we [still obtain] most of our information from investigative journalists.” As the result, if reporters do not protect their sources, this nation runs the risk of “public corruption and private malfeasance ” that will be “[undetectable].”

In the end, protecting a reporter’s or a blogger’s right to conceal sources is essential for eliminating fines and imprisonment, but at times of national security issues these sources must be revealed for the greater good of public safety. In addition, since, frequently, a judge determines if a source can be concealed or revealed based on “public interest” the judicial branch has to be careful as to how they justify and define “public interest” so this may not become a political bombardment of the disclosure of libelled or defamed sources from one party to the next. Overall, this law seems fairly efficient in striking a balance between providing reporters rights and protection to freely and openly do their work in a “read-write” culture while keeping the reins tight on government and national security as well.

The “shield law” is a great example of how true American freedom can be defined. In other words, American freedom does not entail the idea that everyone has rights that each can manipulate in whatever way someone wants. Yes, people do have rights and freedoms but these are genuinely balanced in such a fashion that serves the greater good of society and maintains just regulations to keep the public domain a fearless, safe, and productive environment.

– S. Petrov

Blinkx attempts to crash the music video party

YouTube has been the main source of free, easy-to-access, music videos on the internet for the past couple of years. In fact, I was listening to music from YouTube when I came across this article. According to MySpace, things are about to change.

MySpace has just announced that Blinkx Music Videos portal will be available on their website. Suranga Chandratillake testifies that, “There are hundreds of thousands of music videos available on the Web today which makes it nearly impossible to navigate and find what you are looking for,” as evidence for this need for a Hulu-based system for music. Having indexed more than 30,000 hours of music from 10,000 artists, this seems like it could prove useful for the RW culture, without having record companies constantly trying to claim right to their music.

Despite the competition this has with Vevo and Google’s to-be-announced idea similar to Blinkx, this looks promising for the people who use YouTube to listen to music. They may have the chance to use a more organized and better system of a music library.

-Kevin Cherniawski

“Your final essay must be 140 characters or less…”

                It’s always nice when you get to take a course that deviates from the normal, mundane core classes, but what would think about an entire course on Twitter?  Apparently, one institution has started to not only offer the course, but has made it mandatory for all journalism students.  Griffith University in Australia has begun to offer the course in order to “refine and sharpen young writers’ tweets.”  Students were not as enthusiastic as you might expect them to be, and some were not even aware of Twitter’s existence.

                There are a couple problems I have with this whole situation, mainly with the concept of the course.  How are you going to instruct someone on creating an “in-depth” tweet?  There is not much room for creativity when you only have 140 characters to prove a point or give a witty remark.  Of course, there are some who succeed in doing so and have gained many followers as a result; however, for the most part, many people just don’t have that ability and are not necessarily willing to learn about it.  For journalists, it is important to know how to communicate with both brevity and precision, so it is understandable to want to instruct someone on such a tool as Twitter.  Unfortunately, not many people would want to sit through such a class on something that can be as rudimentary as Twitter is.

                Another problem with this is the obvious disagreement with the course among the students.  This is also understandable because, to be honest, who really wants to sit through a class where you learn how to construct messages with 140 characters or less?  Not many Twitter users had to use a class to learn how to write their first tweet because there really is no complication with using it.  Twitter is probably one of the most minimal social networking websites currently on the Internet anyway – more people seem to be having more problems understanding the new Facebook news feed than worrying about how to write a tweet.  Believe me, I love Twitter, but I refuse to sit around for a semester and learn about it – in case you missed my note earlier, this course is mandatory.  There is no question that the way we communicate has been rapidly changing in the past few years, but I would rather have someone teach a course on reasons why my friends need to stop asking me to play Mafia Wars with them on Facebook.

 -Kianna

A Little Info About RIP

Web activist Brett Gaylor and musician Greg Gillis (Girl Talk) are showing us viewers about the recreation of media into mash ups and the new age in the musical and internet age in RIP: A Remix Manifesto. This film took 6 years to create. Commentators and critics include “Creative Commons founder, Lawrence Lessig, Brazils Minister of Culture Gilberto Gil and pop culture critic Cory Doctorow.” The documentary questions extremely successful Gillis’s (Girl Talk) methods of recreating songs, his use of mash ups, and his song sampling. Several websites suggest that the film is to “leave it up to the viewers mind” to determine if they think that they pop culture phenomena of Girl Talk and several other remixers is legal or illegal.

“Touching on infamous situations such as the recording industry’s sloppy lawsuits against music downloaders, he surveys a wide variety of discussions taking place in both legal and aesthetic circles.”

A “remix of the remix” is produced here, on boing boing. I think its cool how the author of this remixed film includes the fact that his film had been remixed, and he also provides a website enabling us to “go ahead and remix it as well.”

What do you all think of Girl Talk’s remixes? Illegal, legal? What is your take?