BlueBeat Beatles tracks gone for good after judge’s beatdown

12 01 2010

We now have the full legal theory behind BlueBeat.com’s attempt to sell remastered Beatles tracks online for a quarter each. It’s so odd that the federal judge overseeing a music industry lawsuit against the site decided he didn’t even need to hold the hearing scheduled for tomorrow. Instead, he blasted BlueBeat’s “psycho-acoustic modeling” defense and extended his temporary injunction into something more permanent.

In a strange declaration that covers all sorts of ground completely unrelated to the lawsuit (and is littered with typos), BlueBeat founder Hank Risan told the court last week that the songs for sale on his site are totally new recordings that he created and that he in fact owns the copyrights on. This is possible thanks to the wonder of psycho-acoustic simulation, which Risan describes this way:

Read the rest of this article...



The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Judge: RealNetworks caused its own legal problems

12 01 2010

RealNetworks has suffered yet another a legal blow in its battle to bring its DVD ripping software to market, and according to the judge, it’s the company’s own fault.

On Friday, Judge Marilyn Patel dismissed Real’s antitrust claims against the movie industry, saying that the the studios had every right to band together to prevent the sale of RealDVD. Real didn’t suffer any damages at the hands of the studios, either—according to Patel, Real brought the situation on itself by attempting to sell illegal software in the first place.

Read the rest of this article...



The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Federal Rule Bars Post-Judgment Injunctive Relief against Web Site for Third-Party Defamatory Posts

6 01 2010

We have previously described as “robust,” the protection afforded interactive service providers from liability for defamatory contents posted by third parties by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.  But in Blockowitz v. Williams, 1:09-cv-03955 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 21, 2009), involving post-judgment efforts to have defamatory postings removed from a consumer complaint Web site ,  the protection comes, not from CDA Section 230, but from Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, which governs the enforcement of injunctions.

Perhaps predictably, for followers of CDA Section 230 jurisprudence, the consumer complaint Web site involved is the Ripoff Report, operated by perennial defendant Xcentric Ventures, Inc.

more


The content in this post was found at http://newmedialaw.proskauer.com/2010/01/articles/online-content/federal-rule-bars-postjudgment-injunctive-relief-against-web-site-for-thirdparty-defamatory-posts/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NewMediaAndTechnologyLaw+%28New+Media+and+Technology+Law%29 and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



What use is “fair” under the law of copyright?

6 01 2010

Fair Use is one of those terms that can raise a lot of passion among people. Some people today say that all use should be more or less “fair” and it is unfair for big media companies to try and hassle people. The traditionalists in the crowd say that fair use is merely a small limitation on the rights of copyright owners so that others may use portions of their works for certain purposes.

This is truly one of the fascinating discussions of our times in IP law – but I am not going there today. Later on we will discuss these issues in some depth. Today, since I don’t want you to be charged with copyright infringement when you think your use is fair, I am going to give you the black letter traditionalist view of the law of fair use. Fair enough?

more

The content in this post was found at http://ipenforcement.wordpress.com/2010/01/06/what-use-is-fair-under-the-law-of-copyright/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



What Could Have Been Entering the Public Domain on January 1, 2010?

4 01 2010

Current US law extends copyright protections for 70 years from the date of the author’s death. (Corporate “works-for-hire” are copyrighted for 95 years.) But prior to the 1976 Copyright Act (which became effective in 1978), the maximum copyright term was 56 years (an initial term of 28 years, renewable for another 28 years).  Under those laws, works published in 1953 would be passing into the public domain on January 1, 2010.

This includes:

  • Ray Bradbury’s Fahrenheit 451
  • C.S. Lewis’s The Silver Chair (the fourth book in The Chronicles of Narnia)
  • Walt Disney’s Peter Pan
  • H.G. Well’s The War of the Worlds
  • From Here to Eternity (starring Burt Lancaster, Montgomery Clift, Deborah Kerr, Frank Sinatra, and Donna Reed)

Click here for a full discussion and additional works.

Source: Center for the Study of the Public Domain

The content in this post was found at http://indianaintellectualproperty.wordpress.com/feed/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



A look at Apple’s love for DRM and consumer lock-ins

4 01 2010

Apple is a company known for many things, but embracing copyright freedoms has not been one of them. The company loves creating new and innovative products that challenge the world’s perception of what it thought it wanted, but it then turns around and aggressively protects those products from being poked or prodded too much by curious onlookers. Some believe Apple is in the right to do this, while others feel the company could set a better example when it comes to using (or abusing) copyright legislation for its own self-serving purposes.

Read the rest of this article...



The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



512(f) Claim Dismissed on Jurisdictional Grounds–Project DoD v. Federici

31 12 2009

By Eric Goldman

Project DOD, Inc. v. Federici, 2009 WL 4910320 (D. Me. Dec. 13, 2009)

17 USC 512(f) creates a cause of action for sending bogus copyright takedown notices. In a regulatory environment where service providers have itchy trigger fingers, it is crucial to suppress bogus takedown notices or the entire notice-and-takedown scheme becomes easily corrupted. Unfortunately, 512(f) cases have not fared well in the courts, and this one fails (at least temporarily) on procedural grounds. Nevertheless, the case illustrates the challenges faced by service providers dealing with copyright owners who freak out.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/12/512f_claim_dism.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Obama admin: Mandated exemptions can strengthen copyright

30 12 2009

The Obama administration has offered up a strange mix of copyright policies in its first year (both ACTA and Creative Commons, for instance), but it has at least made clear that “better copyright law” does not always mean “more copyright protection.” In the middle of December, for instance, the administration took a stand in support of a World Intellectual Property Organization treaty on copyright exceptions for the blind. The final bit of the US statement of support is worth quoting in full (emphasis added):

We recognize that some in the international copyright community believe that any international consensus on substantive limitations and exceptions to copyright law would weaken international copyright law. The United States does not share that point of view. The United States is committed to both better exceptions in copyright law and better enforcement of copyright law. Indeed, as we work with countries to establish consensus on proper, basic exceptions within copyright law, we will ask countries to work with us to improve the enforcement of copyright. This is part and parcel of a balanced international system of intellectual property.

It’s a call for “balanced” copyright taken directly to the WIPO—and it’s one opposed by the deepest-pocketed copyright holders. Here’s why.

Read the rest of this article...



The content in this post was found at http://feeds.arstechnica.com/arstechnica/BAaf and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Torrent Sites Induce Infringement and Lose DMCA Safe Harbor–Columbia v. Fung

30 12 2009

By Eric Goldman

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., v. Fung, 2:06-cv-05578-SVW-JC (C.D. Cal. Dec. 21, 2009)

In a potentially significant ruling that got a little lost in the Christmas rush, a federal district court ruled on summary judgment that the “torrent site” Isohunt and related websites induced copyright infringement and were not eligible for the online safe harbors in 17 USC 512. This is one of only a few cases finding copyright inducement post-Grokster, and I believe it is the first to say that an inducement finding categorically eliminates any possible 512 safe harbor. While the loss of Isohunt from the marketplace may not be a big deal, it remains unclear if other, more “legitimate” websites will believe the court’s analysis also applies to them. If they do, this case could potentially affect the entire UGC industry.

more

The content in this post was found at http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2009/12/torrent_sites_i.htm and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.



Apple Computer vs. The Beatles Trademark Dispute

30 12 2009

The content in this post was found at http://braniganlaw.wordpress.com/2009/12/30/apple-computer-vs-the-beatles-trademark-dispute/ and was not authored by the moderators of freeforafee.com. Clicking the title link will take you to the source of the post.