The Constable on September 25th, 2008
Ars Technica has an article about a recent letter to Congress from the Department of Justice regarding to Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights Act of 2008 (EIPRA). Basically, the wording of the Act made it so the DoJ was responsible for all civil and criminal cases of copyright abuse, thereby putting the burden on the taxpayer to fund such cases (but money won from the cases would go the rights holders).
In our opinion, cases of copyright abuse are clearly legal arguments that can and should go to the courts, and theft is theft (and those cases are mostly criminal), but when it comes to civil suits those really should be on the burden of the individual bringing the suit. After all, if something is worthy of going to court over in an actual lawsuit, it had better be something you are likely to win - which means groups like the RIAA could easily fund such lawsuits.
The article at ArsTechnica has more information on the letter, but it also has quite a bit of opinion inserted in the article as well - so take what you read with a grain of salt, since this is Ars after all.
The Constable on September 11th, 2008
Today, after almost a year, the OiNK investigation came to an end. Earlier today we reported that OiNK administrator Alan Ellis was charged with “conspiracy to defraud”. Now, just hours later the alleged uploaders are charged with copyright infringement for uploading one CD.
read more | digg story
The Constable on September 11th, 2008
A dozen special-interest groups urged lawmakers Wednesday to squelch proposed legislation that for the first time would allow the U.S. Justice Department to prosecute civil cases of copyright infringement. The bill, a nearly identical version the House passed last year, is strongly backed by the music and movie industries.
read more | digg story
The Constable on September 11th, 2008
Congress returned to work this week, and Senators appear to have copyright on the brain: A broad intellectual property enforcement bill introduced in July is slated for markup by the Senate Judiciary Committee later today, and another aimed at cracking down on piracy overseas was introduced yesterday.
read more | digg story
The Constable on September 8th, 2008
I never thought I’d see the day when YouTube was accused of taking down videos based on too little of a copyright claim, but that’s apparently what’s been happening recently in the ongoing battle between Scientology and the group “Anonymous” (basically the anti-Scientology group).
According to an article at Ars Technica, the majority of the videos have been reinstated, but only after being taken down in the first place. Obviously as YouTube makes efforts to better curtail illegal content being uploaded to their site they are not doing due diligence to affirm the copyright ownership of the claimant. This brings up a question on the fine line between when should and when shouldn’t something be displayed. Obviously if something is up without permission of the copyright holder and the copyright holder asks to have it removed, it should be removed (barring fair use, etc). But what about people who claim to own the copyright and use the DMCA as a way to pull content they just frankly do not like? Is the DMCA perhaps still too strict? Or is YouTube being overly cautious nowadays?
Of course, they could just be really big Tom Cruise fans.
Article Description:
A mysterious entity called American Rights Counsel demanded that 4,000 videos criticizing Scientology be pulled form YouTube late last week. After the counter-notices poured in, the videos went back up, but the war between Scientology and the mask-wearing group “Anonymous” appears to be heating up. Next battle: Broadway.
read more | digg story
The Constable on September 8th, 2008
Yeah… I’m being lazy on this one and just copying the press release. Does anyone really go to these things? Or isn’t this just preaching to the choir?
(By the way, you can tell how much they really care and how much they understand the Internet by how unfriendly and long the URLs are for “more information” listed below). I’ve gone ahead and linked them for you.)
The Copyright Alliance is hitting the road this fall to engage artists, creators, educators and others about the organization’s exciting new one voice initiative.
The Alliance launched the one voi©e campaign earlier this summer, offering creators of all artistic inclinations the opportunity to join a grassroots social network of individuals dedicated to creators’ rights.
Those who join the effort can access a network of other creators who recognize the importance of copyright via an interactive members-only web site. The site provides resources and information about copyright to creators and the ability for them to have their voices heard in policy debates. It also allows artists to engage each other in discussions about related interests, such as marketing strategies, creative inspiration or distribution opportunities.
Representatives from the Copyright Alliance will exhibit at the following events, to which members of the media are invited.
2008
SEPTEMBER 17-20: 2008 Americana Music Conference
Nashville Convention Center
Nashville, TN
For more information:
http://www.americanamusic.org/site.php?content=conference
OCTOBER 8-10: Popkomm
Berlin, Germany
For more information:
http://www1.messe-berlin.de/vip8_1/website/MesseBerlin/htdocs/www.popkomm/index_e/index.html
NOVEMBER 14-16: MidAtlantic Music Conference
The Blake Hotel
Charlotte, NC
For more information:
http://www.midatlanticmusic.com/2008/index.htm
The Constable on August 26th, 2008
Is Mickey Mouse really in the public domain? Interesting article over at the LA Times explores the possibility, based on some new finds in the fine print.
Read the rest of this entry »
