Vote Pirate! Notes from a Pirate Party conference. "I grew up on the Internet. … I sort of consider myself a citizen of the Internet. I'm very attached to it. I'm almost more from the Internet than I am from Massachusetts."
[more inside]
posted by the man of twists and turns
on Apr 14, 2012 -
16 comments
Kirby Ferguson's fourth and final installment of
Everything is a Remix:
System Failure has been released. (Also on
YouTube.) It covers intellectual property rights, the derivative nature of creativity, patents and copyright.
Transcript.
[more inside]
posted by zarq
on Feb 17, 2012 -
5 comments
The U.S. House of Representatives has
drafted their version of Senator
Leahy's Protect IP Act,
renaming the bill the
E-Parasites Act. Among other changes discussed
previ
ously, the bill
now makes internet service providers and websites liable for activities of their users that infringe upon copyrights, effectively overturning parts of the 13-year-old Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
posted by jeffburdges
on Oct 27, 2011 -
120 comments
Senator Leahy's
Protect IP Act would require that U.S. ISPs impose an 'internet death penalty' upon domain after merely a preliminary injunction from a U.S. court that suspects the site of being 'dedicated to infringing activities', even if the domain's owner had never been notified and was not subject to U.S. jurisdiction. There is concern that the legislation would fragment the DNS system and
facilitate DNS spoofing by
obstructing DNSSEC (
pdf). There is also an
open letter opposing the bill signed by 108 Law Professors who study intellectual property law.
[more inside]
posted by jeffburdges
on Jul 24, 2011 -
29 comments
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
