The Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act has added a whole other dimension to the term "copyright infringement." Sponsored by the US entertainment industry, it allows seizure of assets before the accused is found guilty and the creation of a new executive branch led by an "Intellectual Property Czar" who would report directly to the President on IP crimes--similar to the Drug Czar of the War on Drugs. Financial penalties for copyright crimes have increased dramatically. More information here, and a summary of critiques here. Is this a useful addition to the War On Copyright Infringement or just more bureaucratic red tape?
posted by schroedinger on Oct 14, 2008 - 45 comments

Steal this album. "In the dying days of the music business as we once knew it, record labels are waging war on leaks—only to discover that many of the saboteurs come from within the industry itself." It's easy to arrest a geek or lay draconian fines on a single mom; what happens when their witchhunt leads to their own offices? Animal Collective won't always be around to get the culprits off the hook.
posted by Coherence Panda on Jan 2, 2008 - 62 comments

While Courtney pulled an Albini, Jeff handed out the bread. Are the peasants acting like emperors, or do they still want something shiny, aluminum, plastic, and digital? Debacle or cage, something's got to give (pdf). Alternatively, you can just roll your own.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane on Feb 4, 2007 - 32 comments

Illegal Art: Should artists be allowed to use copyrighted materials? Where do the First Amendment and "intellectual property" law collide? What is art's future if the current laws are allowed to stand? Questions asked by Stay Free! in their ongoing multimedia exhibit.
posted by dejah420 on Oct 25, 2006 - 25 comments

P!nk, aka Alecia Moore, aka the hip new face of copyright infringement. P!nk’s latest video, U + Ur Hand, [youtube] blatantly appropriates characters created by late New Zealand artist Martin Emond [possibly NSFW]. No permission was sought or granted, but Illicit Clothing, which manage’s Emond’s estate, do not feel they have sufficient resources to sue Sony BMG. Nevertheless, they and Emond’s fans are justifiably livid. It is highly unlikely that Emond, who took his own life in 2004, and whose musical tastes went in a very different direction, would have felt any different.
posted by Soulfather on Aug 3, 2006 - 44 comments

An end to mondegreens? It looks like Gracenote, the company behind the CDDB (CD database), is looking to enhance your music-listening experience by providing an expansive and "legitimate" lyrics database in association with major on-line digital music providers. Will this be the end of the road for existing lyrics sites? [more inside]
posted by persona non grata on Jul 14, 2006 - 35 comments

Panic -- makers of "Shockingly Good Mac Software" and visually appealing marketing collateral (including their website) -- have documented the various places their branding has been honored flatteringly borrowed ripped-off on the internets. My favorite is the site selling one of their original icons for $199, promising "exclusive ownership." Is imitation really the sincerest form of flattery?
posted by pmbuko on May 5, 2006 - 27 comments

As a followup to this post about Sew Fast, Sew Easy's cease and desist orders for using the phrase "Stitch and Bitch" et.al. to a variety of merchants, Yahoo groups, and knitting groups, it seems that a boycott movement is gaining momentum. They also have a CafePress store to support the cause. Additionally, I think SFSE may have underestimated the enormous growth in knitting blogs and how quickly they band together when given a cause.
posted by like_neon on Jan 24, 2006 - 22 comments

Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2005. In a speech given on November 10th, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales introduced proposed legislation [pdf] that would go one step further in criminalizing copyright infringement. The RIAA thinks its a good idea.
posted by ND¢ on Nov 23, 2005 - 35 comments

After much discussion about legality, within thirty days we will know if Russian authorities are going to bring criminal charges against Allofmp3.com for large-scale copyright infringement.
posted by anathema on Feb 23, 2005 - 20 comments

Marvel Comics sues NCsoft and Cryptic Studios, the makers of the online game City of Heroes for player created content they feel infringes on their copyright. If Marvel wins the case, all game developers can expect to be held responsible for the behavior of their players. This case covers similar ground to the proposed Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act, which is before a Senate Judiciary Committee. Introduced to crack down on illegal file sharing on peer-to-peer networks, the bill would hold technology companies liable for manufacturing products that encourage people to infringe copyrights. The language of the bill caused an uproar among technology and consumer advocates who claimed it would kill innovation. If successful in their lawsuit, would Marvel be able to sue the makers of pens and pencils for producing products that allow people to create pictures of copyrighted characters?
posted by Stuart_R on Nov 16, 2004 - 31 comments

In response to Justice Konrad von Finckenstein ruling that file sharing was legal in Canada (previously discussed here), Federal Heritage Minister Helene Scherrer has stated that "As minister of Canadian Heritage, I will, as quickly as possible, make changes to our copyright law".

The problem is that Canadian copyright law has been going through a slow and thoughtful reformation process. Since the unveiling of A Framework for Copyright Reform in 2001, a lot of progress has been made in updating the laws to reflect the needs and concerns of content producers, and the public domain. Now, however, it seems that all of this work may be bulldozed by Helene Scherrer, who declared her intentions at the Juno Awards last night.
posted by Jairus on Apr 3, 2004 - 11 comments

The Artists Rights Coalition has decided that it is their mission to enforce copyright law. It doesn't matter whether or not it's their copyright -- they're gonna enforce it anyway. An example of the community policing itself or of online vigilantism?
posted by cedar on Jan 17, 2003 - 4 comments

Selling a used item as a copyright infringement? Used knitting patterns are often resold by the original buyer when they've used them. "Alice Starmore(R)" is a company that makes patterns and yarns for knitters. Ebay is a big clearinghouse for knitters, and "Alice Starmore(R)" has repeatedly insisted that ANY auction of their yarns or patterns be pulled as the auctions violate their trademark and/or copyrights. So the knitters are getting a defense fund together to claim anti-trust and restraint of trade. Didn't we sort this all out over selling used books and cd's already? You really shouldn't mess with people who have a hobby that makes them adept with big metal needles. (BTW Alice Starmore is from the Hebrides, hence the whole "KnittingBeyond..." business.)
posted by Salmonberry on Nov 29, 2002 - 19 comments

Left Gets Nod from Right on Copyright Law - A darling of the conservative movement, federal Judge Richard Posner criticizes the Sonny Bono Act and attacks the Patent and Trademark Office for granting "very questionable" business method patents at a lecture organized by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution. (via How Appealing)
posted by ajr on Nov 21, 2002 - 11 comments

The similarity of the painting to Mickey Mouse is so astounding that the Disney concern could even lose its world-wide copyright licence.   Art historian Eduard Mahlknecht believes the similarity to Mickey is pure coincidence. He told Austrian daily Krone "St Christopher was often depicted surrounded by various animals and sea-life, and in this case something that resembles Mickey Mouse.
posted by quonsar on Nov 15, 2002 - 26 comments

It's not a news link if the news is total fluff. For your consideration: a suit drawn on stealing the idea to REMAKE a film, then a suit drawn over who saw a SAMPLE first. The debate! Which outweighs, legal chicanery or creative bankruptcy?
posted by damehex on Oct 9, 2002 - 10 comments

Comic books, cannibalistic worms, albinos, copyright infringement, and the Blues. This story has it all.
posted by anathema on Sep 27, 2002 - 6 comments

Is self-regulation a legitimate approach to protecting copyright on the internet? This question is being debated at Spiked online which has commissioned responses from a variety of sources and also welcomes comments from readers.
posted by anathema on Sep 23, 2002 - 5 comments

Ever wonder who collects information on DMCA violations?
posted by anathema on Sep 20, 2002 - 8 comments

The copyright cops are lacing up their boots and plan on making an example out of you.
posted by anathema on Aug 21, 2002 - 58 comments

More attempted monkeying with the Copyright Act. This proposal by two House legislators one would limit backup copies, while another section would let webcasters off the hook for cached copies. This seems fairly transparent considering now that the webcasting rates have been set webcasting may end up in the hands of the larger corporations. Coincidence? I think not.
posted by anathema on Jul 12, 2002 - 5 comments

Microsoft must include Java with XP and IE. Sun sues Microsoft for including Java, then sues Microsoft for not including Java. Fascinating.
posted by milnak on Mar 8, 2002 - 33 comments

This link is copyright, Eric Costello... aka Glish. No, really, he's serious. Is this really necessary? Comments?
posted by silusGROK on Apr 11, 2001 - 40 comments

There is no more heartfelt memorial than a big car decal with conspicuous ® and © symbols on it.
posted by tregoweth on Feb 25, 2001 - 8 comments

Who owns the rights to your website if you write a book about it?
Michael J. Hammel posed this question today on a mailing list that I am on.
posted by tamim on Nov 3, 2000 - 7 comments

copyright your DNA and do it now... before it's too late!
posted by raedyn on Aug 30, 2000 - 2 comments

Mastercard Wants to Silence Nader If you thought Ralph Nader's views on too much corporate power were too far out -- click this one. The corporate thugs are trying to shut him down.
posted by snakey on Aug 23, 2000 - 6 comments

Where am I going, and why am I in this handbasket? What's happening to copyright law lately, why, why ignoring it may well be the best thing to do to fix it, and why Mickey Mouse is a Yakuza. Very nice piece from (former?) EFF Legal Counsel Mike Godwin
posted by baylink on Jun 21, 2000 - 6 comments

Does the Star Trek Coffee pose a threat to Starbucks?
posted by tiaka on May 15, 2000 - 2 comments

So a few days ago, I went off on some resume sites going out and pilfering my resume off my personal site. Well, I opted out of passportaccess.com, and here is their response. My favorite part: "Once you post your resume or any sort of material on the internet it becomes public information and therefore, can be spread from site to site very quickly." Uh, excuse me? Since when did "public information" equal "copyright-free and we can do anything we want with it?"
posted by mathowie on Feb 10, 2000 - 5 comments

Personal rant time: I wrote my own resume a while ago, and have been building onto it for a couple years now. To me, it is copyrighted material, just as anything else I write. So why is it showing up in all sorts of resume databases? I'm getting calls from recruiters saying they got it from Aquent, Passport Access, and various other resume sites. These sites seem to be sucking down resumes, putting them on their site, and making money off them. I can't see my own resume, since I haven't paid to look at it. I find PassportAccess to be especially annoying: they offer an opt-out page. What the hell? Why should I even have to do this? It's my resume, not theirs!
posted by mathowie on Feb 7, 2000 - 13 comments