A little friday fun, in Kanji

This is certainly the first time this site has been discussed in Kanji.

ErnieはJibJabと音楽出版社の争いに対するわたしの主張にとても良くできた反論を書いている。Martinもそうだ。かれらが正しいことを願っている。Chris Cohenによる関連した判例のすばらしいコレクションも参照。

Hey, so I have no idea what this says, but it's a link from Lessig Blog Japan via CNet Japan (actually it is this post as translated into Kanji, so I do know what it says). The post concerns the recent JibJab crisis and links to Ernie, Martin, and myself. That's pretty cool to get linked in Japan, and also pretty cool having your blog translated into other languages and syndicated by CNet.

You can check out the full Lessig Blog in Kanji, it probably won't do you any good though (I feel pretty confident saying that because I know from "site meter" tracking data that 100% of my readers use an English language browser).

Farmers in Vietnam keen on trademarks

More on trademarks in Vietnam. Farmers are teaming up to get their trademarking on.

The Vietnam Farm Produce Trademark Building Club made its debut on Friday, attracting nearly 30 Vietnamese businesses.

Director of Trung Nguyen Coffee, Dang Le Nguyen Vu, a founding member of the club, explained that the club selected farm produce to build trademarks because up to 80 percent of the Vietnamese population lives on agricultural production.

Mr Vu said most of the Vietnamese farm produce are unprocessed, therefore, they do not create high values for farmers to increase their revenues.
...
“Up to 90 percent of Vietnam’s farm produce is exported through intermediary channels at lower prices,“ Mr Vu said, “These products are then stamped with foreign trademarks and sold at higher prices. In the end, Vietnamese farmers are the losers.”

He said: ”It is time to build trademarks for Vietnamese farm produce to maintain and raise the quality and prestige of our products. It is the only way to increase the value of our products and improve farmers’ living conditions.”

Good stuff. The Voice of Vietnam article here.


UPDATE: Here's more on tradmarks in the fashion sector of Vietnam's economy. Check out the prices for clothes.

Apparently this trademark stuff is big news in Vietnam these days, at least at the The Voice of Vietnam.

The "Voice of Vietnam" on the need to strengthen Vietnamese trademarks

I ran across this article from a site called The Voice of Vietnam titled: "Trademark is Culture for Global Integration Process." I'm not sure that title was properly translated, but the article is very interesting.

According to the Department of Intellectual Properties under the Ministry of Science and Technology, from 1995 to 2002, as many as 8,632 foreign firms registered for [intellectual] property rights in Vietnam, while only 305 Vietnamese enterprises registered. The figures represent 98.7 percent and 1.3 percent of the total number of certificates granted to foreign and domestic firms, respectively. This trend is a warning bell for Vietnamese products and farm produce prior to the country’s accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO).

According to the Ministry of Trade, as many as 4,206 US business trademarks have been registered in Vietnam, less than one percent in comparison to the number of registered trademarks in the US during the 1997-2003 period.
...
For the past 10 years, the concept of "marketing accompanying the quality of goods" has appeared in the consciousness of consumers and the gap between Vietnamese consumers ... This represents a belief that the quality of goods and the significance of a trademark have strong links. Consequently, the quality of goods alone is not enough. It is essential to create an attractive image through the character of a trademark. Therefore, giving a name for a product is part of the culture of running a business.

Wow, it is hard to believe there are places where marketing and quality of goods are just only now becoming linked in the minds of consumers. In the USA it is almost to the point where (some) people are aware that the connection between quality and marketing is at least tenuous, which is a whole different level of consumerism.

The article goes on to describe what the purpose of trademarks are for products in an attempt to get Vietnamese producers to start creating more of them.

Currently, Vietnam has more than 500 trademarks. However, creating a successful trademark in Vietnam is not an easy task and the country is now on the way to global integration. It is necessary for domestic enterprises to learn more from successful foreign businesses, producers and markets, so as to increase productivity and develop a trademark with a deep impression, stable quality and attractive appearance.

I think I am actually jealous of a person who just hasn't been exposed to so many trademarks. In the US and Europe by the time a person is an adult they can certainly identify products and companies by merely seeing the typeface of the logo or a pictoral logo. Is this a sad or an exciting period that the Vietnamese are about to go through? It is difficult to determine the answer to that, although I do know they would probably prefer higher living standards, like anyone else. IP is a vehicle for increased consumerism and profit, hopefully the process of strengthening IP will benefit the people of Vietnam.

I think this article would interest Marty Schwimmer over at The Trademark Blog, I'm sure he'd have some interesting thoughts on it.

Denise Howell on blogging trials

Denise Howell of Bag and Baggage fame recently had a very interesting article on Law.com about blogging ongoing trials. She discusses how blogging trials can be an effective alternate media outlet that is controlled by the client, attorneys, and if the client is really rich (like Martha Swewart style) then also the public relations people. She also warns that there are major pitfalls to blogging a trial. It is truly a facinating endeavor.

In the article Denise interviews several hot-stuff attorneys about their experiences with blogging trials. One of these is New York attorney Robert G. Morvillo, who recently defended Martha Stewart. He came to one of my ethics classes at Cardozo and spoke to us about the Stewart defense. I remember him discussing the blog and how useful it had been to get their infomation and spin out there into the media.

The lawyers interviewed say it costs a load to have a trial blogged. It got me to thinking, any lawyers who want their trial blogged I'll set up a nice looking site for you and put your posts up at a cut rate price compared to those other guys! Hell, I do all this for nada already.

Anyway, go read Denise's article, it's great stuff.

Aussies unhappy with US style IP "free trade"

An interesting article recently appeared on the Australian sites The Age and SMH, titled Intellectual property rights out of tune with public interest (you can skip past the page that asks you to register).

In the article Ross Gittens argues that it is not in Australia's interests to join "free trade" agreements with the US that force them to adopt American IP law.

First, it's quite a contradiction to be including an increase in the protection given to the owners of IP in an agreement that's claimed to be about free trade. It's about restricting trade, not freeing it up.

About the "Yanks," Gittens notes:

They weren't much interested in protecting other countries' IP rights in the 19th century when they were using a lot of European IP to develop their economy but now they're hot against the evil of pinching other people's IP. Now being a poor developing country is no excuse.

Also:

...tricks such as regional coding and prohibitions on parallel imports simply permit IP owners to engage in price discrimination - charging more in some markets than others. And there's a long and sorry history of firms manipulating IP protections so as to stifle the creativity of their rivals. How's that in [Australia's] public interest?

It's an interesting article and a quick read, go check it out.

JibJab video: am I to be labeled a flip-flopper?

Big media outlets are getting their word in now on the JibJab video situation. Here's a solid WIRED story, a piece in Reason.com (that links me), and a short piece in Newsday.

We already knew that the JibJab guys had contacted the EFF for help in the matter after receiving a cease & desist letter (C&D) [C&D - PDF] from the copyright owners in the original Woody Guthrie song "This Land is our Land." Now the EFF has gone a step further by sending out a response [EFF response - PDF] discussing why they think the JibJab video is a parody. The discussions in both letters are informative as to the law of parody, they're only 4 pages each.

I must say, even though several commentators have agreed with me that the JibJab video is a satire, including Lawrence Lessig, I am having doubts about my original position based on the history of the song that interested bloggers and commentors have turned up. I don't know if I'm ready to be labeled a total "flip-flopper" yet, but my thoughts on the parodic nature of the video have shifted based on all the new information that's been dug up.

As I have noted several times in the past, a work that contains both elements of satire and parody should still be considered a parody. Therefore, if the Jib Jab video is a satirical look at the current presidential election between Bush and Kerry, but also a parody of the meaning of Guthrie's song, then the presentation as a whole should be protected under the fair use doctrine of the copyright law and the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose case.

Here's my beef with the parody argument though: it reeks of post hoc reasoning (after the fact) that I am inclined to think is a little over the top. What I mean is that I seriously doubt the JibJab guys were sitting around thinking this as they authored their video (excerpt taken from the EFF letter):

"While [the copyright owner's] view of Guthrie's "This Land is Your Land" [is] predominantly about "the beauty of the American landscape" and "the disenfranchisement of the underclass" ... most Americans think of the song as an iconic expression of the ideal of national unity. [Our] parody addresses, among other things, the lack of national unity that characterizes our current political climate ([and ends] with the optimistic hope that unity might be rediscovered)."

In the comments on this post Ernest Miller suggests it does not matter what the artist was thinking and that the complicated reasons why artists do what they do is not an issue in a parody finding. I agree with him to some extent and so does the US Supreme Court, just look at the Acuff-Rose case. I seriously doubt that 2 Live Crew was thinking along the lines described in the Campbell v. Acuff-Rose opinion when they wrote "Pretty Woman."  The Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose states:

"2 Live Crew juxtaposes the romantic musings of a man whose fantasy comes true with degrading taunts, a bawdy demand for sex, and a sigh of relief from paternal responsibility. The later words can be taken as a comment on the naivete of the original of an earlier day, as a rejection of its sentiment that ignores the ugliness of street life and the debasement that it signifies."

This paragraph as written by the Sup. Ct. is more lyrical than the song it describes, I don't think the members of 2 Live Crew are capable of such thought (and believe it or not I have met them, my opinion is based on personal experience).  It is apparent that post hoc reasoning is acceptable and even necessary in these cases since artists do not record their thoughts as they work.  But post hoc reasoning still sounds suspicious to some people (or courts).

Ultimately, because of my own suspicions about the post hoc reasoning I am left wondering if the JibJab guys actually used "This Land is our Land" because of it's history and meaning or just because it is a familiar tune with a refrain that worked well for their video...period.

To  suggests the work is a parody one must take the position that the Jib Jab team knew the history and meaning of the song when making their video, even if that knowledge was some sort of background psychology at work in their heads at the time. The truth is that at this point it no longer matters because we can never know what they were thinking when making the video and therefore must assume for them a legal 'best-case scenario.'

The four factor parody inquiry is essentially an objective one because it utilizes this post hoc reasoning - the best stuff your attorney can come up with after the fact. But actually this appears to be an attempt to get at a very subjective question: just what was the author thinking when doing the work, even if the thoughts were in the background or subconscious.  In the end what the author was thinking really can be irrelevant to the the legal finding.

In light of the newly dug up information on the history of the song and because the parody inquiry requires objective post hoc reasoning as to the authors intent in creating the work, I believe I have to change my opinion on the matter and give the JibJab guys the benefit of the doubt in this case and assume that they made the video with parody 'in mind' (even if in some deep recess of their mind). I still maintain my doubt as to their subjective intent in making the video, they may well have chosen "This Land is My Land" merely because it had a familiar tune and a convenient refrain.

Anyone have an opinion on this discussion?

[Note: My original post on this matter, linked to on Slashdot and The Importance of... among others, is here.]

Get up to speed on the broadcast flag man!

The Broadcast Flag has gotten lots of attention, but it hasn't been in the news much lately. If you have no idea what I'm talking about then go and learn.

As the INDUCE Act threatens your iPod, the Broadcast Flag threatens your TiVo (and other home entertainment equipment).

The attack on the Betamax decision and your fair use rights continues.

WIRED has an article about it here.

The EFF, as usual, has more here.

Here's a great broadcast flag FAQ with comments by both the MPAA and EFF.

Want more? Of course you do -

The Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT) has it here.

Here's a nice Slate article on the flag.

Here's a great article by Cory Doctorow (wow, I want my own Wikipedia entry too!) called Understanding the Broadcast Flag.

Copyrighting the President

Here's a link to an article purported to be by Lawrence Lessig for an upcoming issue of WIRED.

In the article Lessig argues that copyright law is keeping the public from hearing important messages from politicians, including the US president, because the private news companies that record interviews and press conferences refuse to allow others to use the footage even though what the president says in public really shoundn't be copyrightable.

It's a quick and interesting read.

Bizzare copyright case

Bob and Marion

Here is a link to one of the most bizarre copyright cases I've seen in a long time. Apparently Bob Shell, a photographer, who is being charged in the the death (drug overdose) and subsequent defilement of one of his models (named Marion Franklin) is suing the police for copyright infringement because they took a bunch of his photos. Remember, innocent until proven guilty.

Bob Shell's homepage here, with discussion of his criminal case.
Bob Shell's memorium to Marion Franklin here.
More Bob Shell photos here and here (not safe for work, some nudes)
Apparently Bob Shell was also into alien autopsy film stuff.

I think I'll stop poking around now, before this gets any more weird.

Article about the copyright case here.

UPDATE: here's another article in the case, it doens't offer any more than the first though. And another.

If you see any new info please put the link in a comment below.

See What You Blame on P2P

Examples of pics available on P2P nets.


Ernest over at The Importance of points out this interesting CNet article about a new blog called "See What You Share On P2P." The purpose of the blog, so the owner says, is to demonstrate the danger posed to national security by P2P nets. The author of the blog has posted some fairly sensitive material he found on P2P nets, including secret military documents (with names and numbers blacked out).

The author of "See What You Share" states that:

"Technology often outruns legislation. So is the case with Peer 2 Peer networks. Many people obtain P2P software so they can download music or movies. A large number of those people do not have any idea what they are sharing."

As Ernest points out in his post, the technology outrunning legislation is not really the problem. The problem is one of security, a problem with users.

This is the typical situation where the technology and not the user get the blame for security problems. It's the same situation with spam, spyware, and viruses. These problems are (easily) avoidable, but it depends on the users' education about the problems. For instance, many of us know never to put a hyperlink to our email addresses online b/c it will be crawled by a bot and the address spammed, but many people still don't know that. There are also plenty of ways to avoid getting spyware, like stop downloading freeware smiley face and wallpaper programs and get yourself a spyware killer. How about viruses? It's oh so simple, get an antivirus program and set it to update regularly. Also, don't load suspicious files; and yet people just keep opening those dodgy .TXT attachments in their email. All the while a little user education could virtually put an end to these Internet ills, but instead everyone uses these problems to push for legislation and more hardcore Internet governance. Legislation and more governance can't even stop these problems, the perpetrators inevitably just go overseas.

The "See what you share" guy refers to legislation, obviously the INDUCE Act. The security problem he is making people aware of is not the fault of the technology though, but our own fault. He so much as says so in his statement of purpose: "I want everyone to know that we can be our own worst enemies when we don’t understand the full power of our technology."

Shocker: owner of "fansite" that offered TV shows for download busted

Saw this on Slashdot, more here:

"The Stargate SG-1 Information Archive is reporting that the Feds filed charges against Adam McGaughey, creator of SG1Archive.com. The website is a fan site for the television show Stargate SG-1. The charges allege that Adam used the website to engage in Criminal Copyright Infringement and Trafficking in Counterfeit Services. Two interesting things about the charges are that they were apparently set in motion by a complaint by our friends at the MPAA and the FBI invoked a provision of the USA Patriot Act to obtain financial records from his ISP. Is copyright infringment now a terrorist act?"

You almost want to feel sorry for this guy. But then...according to this DOJ press release the site offered downloadable copies of all the episodes of the show. This Google Group link also indicates that this guy isn't deserving of much sympathy, it seems he's been engaged in some quite dodgy acts including ripping people off on eBay (not that that's relevent to the copyright issues, but still). I see that BoingBoing has more on this.

Noteworthy is that the comments to the post on Slashdot get around to discussing the INDUCE Act somehow. I don't know why, but I like the fact that people are thinking about it and are worried about it...because they should be worrying.

By the way, if you see anymore about the Patriot Act thing, drop me a comment with a link to the article, thanks!

Ballmer goes nuts for iPod satire animation

Stephen Nipper, of Necessity's Progeny patent blog fame, points out this flash animation with an iPod ad look. That really is Steve Ballmer sounding like Howard Dean at an Apple company conference. Scary stuff.

This flash animation is a satire, since it uses the iPod ad look to make fun of a person who was not involved with the creation of the iPod or the ads. If the animation targeted the Apple CEO or the iPod itself or something related to the iPod it may have been a parody.

Finally, I'd just like to say: Mr. Ballmer, chill out man, for one you're going to give yourself a coronary and two, no company is that exciting (ok, maybe one that you're making millions from is pretty exciting, but still, calm down before you hurt yourself).

Thanks for the tip Stephen Nipper.

Fuse's new silhouette ads: parody or satire?

More parody or satire! A great day indeed. Apple is all in a tizzy over these new ads for Fuse, a TV channel. Check out big pics of the offending ads here. Frankly, the Fuse ads are much funnier than the iPod version. Although the others are more scandalous, my favorite is the one with beer bong action, I haven't done that since college.

So...the ads do not really seem to target Apple or the iPod specifically, but perhaps they offer some commentary on how banal the iPod ads are. This is a slightly tougher case that the "iRaq" ads, which were obviously satire.

If the Fuse ad pictures were not so funny, I'd be inclined to think that the Fuse ads are neither satire nor parody, but purely an appropriation of Apple's ad style. Since they are obviously meant to be humorous I'll have to say that this is likely parody because it is obvious that the ads, while functioning as marketing for Fuse, also make a strong point about the boring and banal iPod ads. After viewing the Fuse ads the iPod ads no longer seem very meaningful, the Fuse ads defuse them, so to speak.

It's a close case. Apple has a strong argument that the ads do not target them at all. We'll keep an eye on this and see what happens.

Via Gizmodo.

JibJab video: parody or satire?

First watch this JibJab.com video featuring a parody/satire of the song "This Land is My Land" and starring Bush and Kerry, it probably will not be up for long.

The owner of the copyright in the song doesn't think that little video is as funny as you do. The company, The Richmond Organization, is breaking out the lawyers on JibJab.com. Ironically, The Richmond Organization can be shortened to "TRO," which is probably what they are seeking against JibJab at the moment (that's a "temporary restraint order" 'round these parts).

So, as happens at least once a month, we are back to discussing the difference between a parody and a satire. Simply put, a parody targets the original content or creator, for example if the JibJab video targeted how lame the song or it's lyrics are then it would be parody. Satire uses the work to comment on something other than the original content or creator. A work can be a parody if it contains elements of both parody and satire.

The JibJab video would likely be considered satire, because the video does not directly target the original song. The clear target here is Bush and Kerry or politics/society in general. Also, if the video is a commercial use of the song, that will hurt JibJab's case. Commercial use is loosely defined, that the video brings people to a site where there are things offered for sale would be enough.

TRO is upset about the use of the song because apparently:

...the Jibjab creation threatens to corrupt Guthrie's classic [song] -- an icon of Americana -- by tying it to a political joke; upon hearing the music people would think about the yucks, not Guthrie's unifying message.

Article here.

Here's more on the difference between parody and satire: the "iRaq"/iPod ads; TV Commercial Jams; parody or satire?

***UPDATE 8/25/04***
Here is a more recent post in which I consider that the JibJab video may actually be a parody. We will really never know now whether the video would have been found to be a parody or satire due to the recent settlement. Congrats to the JibJab guys for sticking it out. Most companies just fold when threatened.



*****UPDATE****: There's a discussion of my recent "Parody or Satire?" posts over at The Importance of... Ernest Miller disgrees with me that the JibJab video is satire, noting that the JibJab version concerning division certainly attacks the meaning of the original, which was a message of unity. But Lawrence Lessig agrees with me here, and links to me here, thanks Larry! (I guess after a link we are on first name basis, right?)

****UPDATE****: The JibJab crew have contacted the EFF concerning the threats of lawsuits by TRO.

***UPDATE***: This post linked to on Slashdot, here.

Stephen Hawking stole my ideas about black holes!

vs.


Time for some fun:

The great Dr. Raj Baldev has a complaint against Stephen Hawking, that Hawking stole his idea! Apparently Baldev is considering a copyright claim against Hawking! (You learn on the first day of copyright class that ideas are not copyrightable, by the way.)

The International Reporter, a purported news outlet, reports that Stephen Hawking's recently publicized ideas about black holes are not original to him, but to a Dr. Raj Baldev. Hawking recently announced to the physics world that he has concluded that matter and information sucked into a black hole is eventually spewed out in a mangled form, as opposed to the former and more interesting idea about the matter being shot into another parallel universe. This was huge news from Hawking, who has worked on the problem for about 30 years now, and was widely covered in the media, there are article here, here, here, here, and here. More from Google News here.

The International Reporter has published two articles claiming that Dr. Raj Baldev came up with this idea years ago and that Hawking is stealing his "copyright" in the idea. Apparently Baldev wrote about the same idea in a book called "Two Big Bangs Created the Universe." The book doesn't seem to be available on Amazon, or anywhere else for that matter. A second article in the International Reporter also questions the originality of Hawking's idea.

Dr. Raj Baldev has supposedly written this mangled article on black holes (in broken English and also in the International Reporter).

This page states: "Dr. Raj Baldev, who is a famous Cosmo Theorist, is also considered an authority in Astrology and occult sciences..." Hmmmm. Also, the good doctor has apparently "discerned a plot against Bush," article here (surprisingly published in the International Reporter).

Basically, this is a bunch of total quacks with too much time on their hands, or maybe even some cult or something. Anyway, it's pretty funny. I'll be keeping my eye out for that copyright claim Baldev is going to bring against Hawking, I'm sure the famous cosmologist has a strong case. Maybe this is something that would interest Snopes?

Family Movie Act on the move

The House Judiciary Subcommittee voted 18-9 in favor of the Family Movie Act (a.k.a. the "Clearplay Act"). The FMA still has to go up for a vote in the full House. There is no similar bill being considered in the Senate at the moment.

Basically, the Family Movie Act will allow people to modify movies as they watch them from DVDs in order to edit out the "bad" parts. The main company behind the whole situation is the Utah based Clearplay, which sell special DVD players that skip over the naughty bits of movies. Although the idea sounds like some sort of censorship by choice, or just a kind of religion-driven bit of silliness; the important point that the FMA makes is that people can use the media they purchase however they want to. That is considered by many to be a good thing for all consumers. Of course copyright holders do not like consumers being able to manipulate their media because, understandably, they want to retain control of how content is used even after it's purchase.

ClearPlay is currently involved in a law suit with several Hollywood directors and industry groups, the case is called Huntsman v. Soderbergh.

The measure's author, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, said the legislation guarantees that parents will be free to use technology to protect what children watch. He compared skipping objectionable scenes in a movie to skipping paragraphs in a book. "Parents should have a right to show any movie they want and skip or mute any content they find objectionable," Smith said.
...
Critics of the bill argued that it is aimed at helping one company, Utah-based ClearPlay Inc., whose technology is used in some DVD players to help parents filter inappropriate material by muting dialogue or skipping scenes. ClearPlay sells filters for hundreds of movies that can be added to such DVD players for $4.95 each month ... Hollywood executives have complained that ClearPlay's technology represents unauthorized editing of their movies. They maintain that ClearPlay should pay them licensing fees for altering their creative efforts.

Article quoted from here. ClearPlay's site here. Background on the situation here. The legal briefs and press releases from the ClearPlay case are available from the EFF here.

IICA hearing news

I am now posting all INDUCE Act info at the shiny new INDUCE ACT blog. Get the low down on the IICA hearing ("Protecting Innovation and Art while Preventing Piracy" hearing) there. My report is here.

I will say that the hearing went very well for those who oppose the INDUCE Act as it was written. There is to be a new draft of the bill produced during the month of August. Keep checking with the INDUCE ACT blog for updates and to see if you will be allowed to have an iPod at the end of this process (it looks good)!

New INDUCE ACT group blog!

New group blog:

INDUCE ACT - "all Induce Act news, all the time"

The purpose of the INDUCE ACT blog will be to consolidate available information concerning the Induce Act as well as to provide new and original content about it. We hope that the INDUCE ACT blog will become a forum for discussion about the INDUCE Act. Please use the ability to make comments on the posts.

The authors of the INDUCE ACT blog include yours truly and Kevin Heller of Tech Law Advisor, and perhaps others in the future.

If you have any tips or info about the Induce Act please drop me an email at: ccohen "at" gmail "dot" com

Ah-weem-a-way lawsuit update

CNN has more on the recently filed lawsuit over "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" song (Ah-weem-a-way Ah-weem-a-way). The family of the woman who wrote the song appears to be relying on moral rights laws to claim that they still own the song despite the fact that the writer sold it.

The song, popularized in the long-running theater production and cartoon movie "The Lion King" was originally written in 1939 by Solomon Linda, a Zulu migrant worker turned songwriter.

The writer died penniless in 1962. Her family now lives in poverty in the infamous Soweto neighborhood in Johannesburg.

The song has been covered by at least 150 artists, including The Tokens, George Michael, Miriam Makeba and The Spinners. Linda's three surviving daughters and 10 grandchildren, living in poverty in the Johannesburg township of Soweto, have received only a one-time payment of $15,000.

When you consider the condition of the family, you sort of hope Disney will just take a small hit and settle. The suit is for $1.5 million, but I bet the family would take a whole lot less to settle, considering they are dirt poor. Soweto is not a place you'd want to go on vacation (if you wanted to relax anyway). Soweto is a neighborhood where poor black miners were forced to live during apartheid, it is still pretty rough.

The Trademark Blog has more.

Jesus in violation of Intel's trademark

Here's a funny article in The Register entitled "God violates Intel trademark." Apparently a church has put up "Jesus Inside" ads somewhere.

"Satan Inside" t-shirts may be purchased here, here, here, and here.

Here are a few of my own trademark infringement pics -
McWong's
Sub-Way sandwiches
Le Disney, the pizzaria

Hillary Clinton co-sponsors the INDUCE Act

I am ashamed to learn that Hillary Clinton, my NY rep in the Senate, has become a co-sponsor of the INDUCE Act (now IICA). Hillary Clinton has received $1,100,390 from Hollywood in the past.

This really feels like a blatant sell out to me, Hollywood/media money vs. technological innovation and consumer 'rights'. I wonder if Clinton even knows more than a few blurbs or soundbites about the bill? I really don't see how the INDUCE Act is supportable by an intellectually honest and informed person. I like Clinton for the most part, but after this I am much more skeptical of her motives in politics. Too bad.

There are currently nine co-sponsors for the INDUCE Act.

Learn more at The Importance Of..., Ernest Miller has been doing lots of wonderful posts about IICA there.

Op-ed about the DMCRA

There's a terrific and strongly worded op-ed piece concerning the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act in the Kansas City Star ("that's what I are," sorry that's a private joke between me and whoever else knows the song).

To restore the balance between consumer rights and copyrights, the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, HR 107, has been introduced in Congress. It ensures that consumers can use DVDs and CDs in ways protected by traditional copyright laws - where consumers decide where and how they view their legally purchased content. Not surprisingly, the entertainment industry that pushed through the copyright act is aggressively opposing HR 107 ... If HR 107 sounds like simple common sense, that's because it is. It is consumers who are driving the digital transition, and it is their rights that must be protected. The digital revolution is a revolution precisely because it allows consumers to enjoy more and higher-quality content, but Hollywood wants to turn back the clock and stop the progress.

After reading the op-ed maybe you'll be inclined to support the DMCRA here, it takes all of 1 minute to send a letter to your rep. Public Knowledge has more on the DMCRA.

The op-ed is by Mark Cooper, the director of research with the Consumer Federation of America, article here.

Business Software Alliance may have released bogus report in order to support passage of the INDUCE Act

A major software industry group may have released a bogus piracy study in order to support passage of the INDUCE Act. While these sort of studies are typically self serving, this new one claims that there is $29 billion dollars of software piracy going on yearly. In previous studies the same group claimed that there was $13 billion in yearly losses due to software piracy.

[A] study released two weeks ago by the Business Software Alliance ... estimated the yearly losses from software piracy at $29 billion worldwide ... The trade group's previous estimate of software piracy losses was $13 billion a year.

Microsoft is a leading supporter of the Business Software Alliance. Better news is that:

More than 40 companies and organizations - ranging from Intel, Google and Verizon to the American Library Association - wrote to [Senator] Hatch on July 7, expressing concern that the bill would touch off a wave of copyright suits and would chill innovation. They requested a hearing on the bill before Congress proceeded any further.

There is a hearing scheduled for Thursday I believe. Of course it is hardly a full blown hearing. It'll consist of the Judiciary Committe support and the Industry groups all making speeches about how the INDUCE Act is needed in order to protect them from Kazaa. We'll see how much true debate there is and what they say about legal standards of intent and so on.

International Herald Tribune article here.

Fleshbot in trouble for merely linking to Diaz video?

The Gawker Media owned blog Fleshbot (not safe for work) has recieved a cease and desist letter for merely linking to a site selling copies of a 1992 (pre-super star) Cameron Diaz video which they describe as a "softcore S&M-flavored aerobics routine with a Chippendale-looking dude in a loincloth." 
 
Nick Denton, owner of Gawker Media says:

"Whether or not Fleshbot or any of the Gawker sites link to (the video's) site, it's still there," said Fleshbot editor John d'Addario. "We didn't host the video, we're not selling the video, and we didn't link to the video itself. There are a lot of blogs out there ... putting it on their sites. It's not hard to find."

A CTEA in the EU because of an Elvis song?

An Elvis song called "That's Allright" is going to enter the public domain on Jan 1st, 2005 in Britain.  The song was recently rereleased in Britain and is currently, for some reason, in the top 5 of the Brit charts.  

In the United States, BMG will continue to own the rights to the recording. Under the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act, sound recordings are protected for 95 years from the day of recording in the United States -- for post-1976 recordings, coverage is the artist's life plus 70 years.  In most of the European Union, the duration is 50 years after the first release of a sound recording.

Record companies are calling this Elvis situation a "wakeup call" for EU lawmakers, arguing that they need to extend copyright as occured in the US with the Copyright Term Extension Act.  Of course, since anything that falls into the public domain becomes the property of the people, this would amount to a massive wealth transfer from the populace of the entire EU to the recording companies (as it was here in the US when the CTEA passed).

"I regard this week's anniversary as a wakeup call and a call to arms to step up a gear or two in our campaign to lobby for a similar term in the EU," said Peter Jamieson, executive chairman of British Phonograph Industry, in a recent speech.

It would be a shame if such an act passed in the EU, as it was here.  The fact is that all creative works are based on what came before.  Without access to the works of the past artists and regular people are limited in what they can do with the works and how they can use them.  Extending copyright terms impacts negatively on artistic innovation in music, writing, painting, photography, etc. 

When a company produces a copyrighted work and are granted state sponsored copyright protection for the life of the author of the work plus 50 or more years, that company has also made an agreement with the public - that at the end of the copyright term they will turn that work over to them via the public domain.  The work was protected by the state, later it goes to the populace of that state.  Companies that are trying to extend their copyrights at the last second are renigging on that promise.  I'm no idealist, this effort isn't surprising considering the money at stake, but I hope that courts will consider such reasoning when hearing these cases. 

The fact is that at the time protection is granted the creator has already agreed to a time limit for that protection.  Lengthening that protection will not encourage more creation, it only stifles innovation.  There is not a single artist out there who would decide to stop creating because they'll get only 50 years of protection after their death instead of 70.  It's ludicrus in light of the purpose of copyright law - to encourage innovation and creation by protecting the works for a limited time.

Reuters article quoted here.

Girlfriend 'hit with alligator'

BBC story "Girlfriend 'hit with alligator.'"

Girlfriend Nancy Monico claimed he ... grabbed the alligator and swung it at her as she tried to escape, said officials.

Whoa.  Maybe a new boyfriend is in order here?

The NY Post screws up again, etc.

Allow me to preface this post by stating that I really don't give a crap about Britney Spears or what she drinks...that said...
 
I've described the New York Post as a right-leaning scandal rag in the past (and also The Washington Times, which is no better - and is still running the "10 out of 10 terrorists agree anybody but Bush" ad on it's home page, if you don't know what I mean click here). 
 
Proving me right yet again, yesterday the NY Post ran a huge picture on the front page of the paper of what they purported was Britney Spears drinking liquor from one of those mini bottles.  Why this would even be interesting to anyone if it were true I do not know.  As it turns out the drink was not liquor.  Spears even has the guy who rang her up at the store on her side, saying he sold her a little bottle of ginseng.   
 
This comes only a week after the NY Post got an "exclusive" on Kerry's pick for running mate - Gephardt, oops.  They keep screwing up because all they care about is being the first with the story, true or not.  They really are no better than the Drudge Report (which, incidentally, is also running the "10 out of 10 terrorists agree" ad).  This time it looks like the NY Post's screw-up may cost them a money settlement with Spears.
 
I used to get the NY Post on occasion because it is only 25 cents and is definitely easy reading on a lunch break.  I've since sworn it off and I feel much more intelligent for it.  When you read the NY Post you can feel your brain cells melting down, probably much the same as you would feel watching Fox News, which incidentally is owned by the same right wing media baron, Rupert Murdoch.  
 
Here's the NY Daily News on the Spears incident (they're always happy to point out the NY Post's failings), and here's one of many stories on the Kerry running mate flap.  I also found an article in the Investor's Business Daily entitled: "The New York Post is becoming a bad joke," unfortunately the article isn't there anymore.  I think that title does just about sum it up though.  If the NY Post were even 50 cents I think the NY Daily News (being 50 cents) would wipe it out (or if the Daily News were 25 cents). 
 
The NY Post, Wash Times, Fox News, and the Drudge Report are all peas of the same pod.  They aren't just trashy, they're misreporting the truth.  It isn't such a problem when it concerns what Britney is drinking, but obviously when it comes to reporting important things like War, it can be a problem when half the country is getting misinformation.

DMCRA on the move...but so is the Induce Act

According to this PC World article, things are looking good for the passage of the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act.  David Green, the VP of the MPAA claims that the DMCRA:

"...would 'put a hole in the ship,' Green says, by allowing the creation of devices or technologies that have significant copyright-infringing uses. The explosion of digital content available in the last six years is due to the protections of the DMCA, he says."

I guess Green forgot that the Betamax decision and the fair use provisions of the Copyright Act already give people the right to create technology with significant infringing uses.  Also, I could have sworn the reason that there has been an explosion of digital content in the last six years was not because of the DMCA, but because of the DEVELOPMENT OF DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY, like the Internet (and also because digital content providers are raking in tons of loot).
 
Thank god for the DMCA, without it all the digital content providers would probably just...keep producing digital content and raking in tons of loot.
 
It is a shame that the MPAA and other media groups are so short sighted.  They would love nothing more than to just freeze technological development.  In the long-run of course, they have much to gain from the advancement of digital media technology - as they did with the VCR, which they were scared silly of too. 
 
This killing off of technological innovation is the major goal of the Induce Act as well, which by the way, has been fast tracked in the Senate and may be voted on as early as this Thursday.  Find out more and send petitions to your representatives here, New Yorkers go here for more.
 
It seriously takes all of a minute to send an email to your representatives about the Induce Act via the EFF website.  Go, give it a whirl.

WA court strikes down violent videogame law

In a recent court decision, Washington state struck down as unconstitutional a law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. This is clearly a victory for free speech. Video games have been targeted by politicians and right-leaning groups for inciting violence in schools, etc. All I have to say to that is - by the time your kid is a teenager they've seen thousands of murders and criminal acts on TV and in movies. If a kid commits a crime there is no reason to think it was incited more by a videogame than any other media, so chill out. More at Tech Law Advisor. CNN article here.

EFF and Schultz on CNN concerning the patent bust

The EFF's patent busting project is discussed in this piece on CNN.com.  Basically, the article just says it is going to be very difficult for the EFF to bust their 10 picks and includes a gloating CEO of target company Acacia sarcastically wishing them luck. 
 
The article also features a pic of a very tough looking Jason Schultz.

More here.

The wonders of science

"Poo power is certainly something I would consider if it were practical."

Article here.

Wouldn't wanna be you

Hew Raymond Griffiths, a "warez" pirate, may be the first Aussie to be extradited to the US to face copyright infringement charges.

US authorities allege he was the ringleader of an Internet group, "DrinkOrDie," which illegally copied and distributed more than US$50mil (RM190mil) worth of pirated software, movies, games and music before investigators shut down the group in 2001. ...

DrinkOrDie was part of the so-called "warez" scene in which participants known as suppliers obtain access to copyrighted software, videogames, movies and music files, often before the titles are available to the public.

Other participants known as "crackers" use their technical skills to "crack" the copyright protection, while others known as "couriers" distribute the pirated software to various fileservers on the Internet.

The group, founded in Moscow in 1993, gained worldwide notoriety when it released a pirated version of the Windows 95 operating system two weeks before it was released by Microsoft.

Hew faces a 500 grand fine and 10 years in prison, I bet he'll get every day of those 10 years too. Ouch.

Here's an article entitled "Wanted: for long-distance geekiness." The article notes that the 41 year old Hew lives with his parents. Apparently being the ringleader of huge international warez crews isn't a particularly profitable enterprise.
Here's a Wikipedia entry about DrinkOrDie.

Here's a Slashdot interview with a member of DoD.

Article cited from here. Other articles in The Register, News.com.au, ZD Net.

Don't mess with Hillsborough's "copyright"

The Town of Hillsborough, North Carolina is going to "copyright" it's town logo, according to this article. Most probably this is an example of a writer who didn't even bother to look up the difference between copyright and trademark. The logo is more likely to be trademarked as a designation of source, not copyrighted as an original creative work (it may not even be copyrightable). Anyway, the town logo is of an old clock. The town's boardmembers recently made the decision to exercise control over their brand, stating:

"For $35, it's kind of a no-brainer to do. For $35, why not have some sort of control over it? If it's our brand, the town brand, then we should be able to have some sort of legal control over it." ... "I don't think there's anybody misusing it," he said. "It's just something, I feel like, something we should do."

Yeah, why not? All this for only $35, that's 7 easy payments of $5! And not only that, we'll also send you a blog post featuring YOUR TOWN absolutely FREE! Hurry folks! Call now before someone steals your town name!

Would you get "chipped"?

While we in the US (mostly) debate the advantages and disadvantages of using RFID chips on people, a debate which essentially boils down to security vs. privacy, other countries and individuals are embracing them.

In Osaka, Japan the school system is going to attach RFID chips to the kid's bags and clothes in order to track them. In Mexico the Attorney General and other government officials are having RFID chips implanted in their arms in order to allow them to be tracked if they are abducted.

Mexico's attorney general said on Monday he had a microchip inserted under the skin of one of his arms to give him access to a new crime database and also enable him to be traced if he is ever abducted.

Meanwhile, in Boca Raton, Florida, the school system has decided to use hand scanners to ID students. The new Don Estridge High Tech Middle School will have hand scanners in "all 61 classrooms, the cafeteria, main office and media center." Apparently there are also several schools in Palm Beach County, FL also have video surveillance cameras in the classrooms. Dam, sounds like the Pentagon or something. Hand scanners are also used at 18 schools in Akron, Ohio, the Johnson & Wales University campus in Denver, and Diebold (the voting machine makers) has installed hand scanners at West Virginia University residence hall, among others.

As could be guessed, at this early stage in the use of handscanners, they are being donated by a company that probably expects sales to schools in the future. Get 'em hooked pusherman, those teachers won't even know how to take attendance manually sooner or later. Apparently at least two kids "are telling everyone about it. They think it's so high-tech, so FBI, so cool."

I don't think these stories relate in a particularly profound way, but they certainly point to changing attitudes worldwide when it comes to allowing what many people would consider an invasion of their (or their children's) privacy.

Thanks to Tom Thinks for pointing this out.

The Super Megason IV

Afrotech (interesting name...) has discovered the Super Megason IV gaming system at a store near his place in Bahrain. Since this is an 8 bit system, like the old Nintendo, I wonder what the first 3 incarnations of the Megason were like. Anyway, this is a great example of this interesting new trend I've been noticing on the streets of New York City, that's right, it isn't only happening in Bahrain!

Now that the components of such low-power computer systems are incredibly cheap, some pirate/hackers/companies out there are mass producing them and including a whole slew of old Nintendo games along with the hardware. In this case the many games come on a single cartridge (even though it looks in the picture like the Megason takes a CD), but there are some similar devices for sale on the streets of NYC that have all the games built right into the firmware inside the controller! Isn't that snazzy! I have a friend who recently picked on of these up for $10, so maybe I'll post some pics eventually.

If you're reminiscing and want to get your Super Mario and Duck Hunt on, this is the way to go these days...that is, if you don't mind totally violating countless copyrights doing so.

Here's an overly sarcastic look at the Super Megason on Joystiq.

Via Joystiq and Afrotech.

Book publishers want you to think of selling used books as the "Napster" of the book business!

I am really loving The Importance Of... today. See what happens when you go away for a few days? All these interesting things go on.

Anyway, here's another post that just shocks, yes shocks me. Apparently book publishers would really love to strip us of our rights under the First Sale Doctrine. In copyright law, that is what allows you to sell your used media if it is copyrighted and the material is owned by someone else. It is the reason you can sell your used books and cds at thrift shops, used bookstores, and online. Yes, there really is a special statute for theses things you take for granted.

The NYT writes in this article that Amazon dot com's used book section has made it so efficient to sell used books that it is the new "Napster of the book selling business." What a crock, the analogy doesn't work for so many reasons.

Personally, I don't feel sorry for the publishers. They've been charging me hundreds of dollars per semester for their textbooks which they put out "new editions" of every other year just to keep (poor and broke) students like me from buying them used. For more on students pirating textbooks see here.

Via The Importance Of..., more at LawMeme.

The dumbest copyright criminal in all of England?

Classic - a guy selling pirated DVDs walks into one of Britian's "Trading Standards Office" offices without knowing where he is and asks the workers if they're interested in buying some pirated DVDs. As you can imagine, they were quite interested. The moron was arrested after figuring out where he was and running off.

Peter Martin, Essex County Council's cabinet member in charge of Trading Standards, said: "It would be great if all pushers of counterfeit goods would come to our offices to try and sell their wares. It would make the life of our dedicated team a great deal easier."

Article in the BBC.

OutFOXed documentary copyright concerns covered

Ernest at The Importance of... has this topic completely covered. Basically, after FOX sued over the title of Al Franken's "Lies and the Lying Liars..." book and was laughed out of court one would want to be careful when using the litigious FOX's material. This post is a good look at the issues involved. Luckily for the producers of OutFOXed they had Larry Lessig and other copyright mavens to assist them in making their film infringement free and full of fair use.

See a clip of OutFOXed here. There are more clips to be seen at the OutFOXed homepage as well.

Here's a NYT Magazine article about OutFOXed and the "Guerilla Documentary." Check it out before it gets archived.

Via The Impotance Of...

Update: I just noticed this more recent post at The Importance Of..., apparently FOX is already threatening to sue over the film and were very pissed off about that NYT Magazine article linked to above. More articles:
Film Calls Fox News Biased, Channel Cries Foul
Fox Fights Back Against 'NY Times' Over Film Story

FOX is claiming that this is all illegal infringement that is being supported by the NYT and "liberal billionare" George Soros (inducement to infringe perhaps?). Awwwww, boo hoo.


UPDATE: I've never had reason to link to Wonkette, but thanks to Tech Law Advisor for pointing out that Wonkette has all the internal FOX News memos used by the creators of OutFOXed to show that Fox's bias. It is quite a read just to check out the first few paragraphs.

A Yellow Pages for Cell Phones

This is the worst idea ever. The cell phone companies say it'll be totally opt-in, but we'll see when the telemarketers start calling.

The directory will likely increase the number of cell-phone calls and could earn the industry billions of dollars in revenue each year.

The increase in calls is not going to come from friends who lost your number.

Via Wired.

Mozilla on the rise

Ok, so it's been popular forever. But Wired has recently done a few stories about Mozilla that has got me thinking I need this program (I just downloaded it). Mozilla/Firefox is an open source browser that can be used on PC or Mac as an alternative to Netscape, Internet Explorer, or whatever it is that Macs use. It is apparently much more secure than other mainstream (PC) browsers, most malware is written for IE. Also, there is are a group of extensions for Mozilla called Firefox that allow the user to do some pretty cool stuff, like block all those annoying flash ads and blinking jpeg ads on websites, as well as pop ups and so on. Anyway, I don't know much about it yet, but I am going to give it all a whirl.

Here are some Wired articles to check out if you are interested in Mozilla:
More Extensions for Mozilla
Building a Better Mozilla
Mozilla Feeds on Rival's Woes

You can get Mozilla at the Mozilla homepage. The Firefox extensions are here.

Kerry Edwards dot com, how much is it worth?

Sometimes life is too bizarre, or perhaps it was predictable that there would be a bail bondsman out there named Kerry Edwards who would've registered Kerryedwards.com and posted pics of his family on the site. If this guy had no legitimate right to the site name then a quick UDRP proceeding could have been the solution for John Kerry's campaign. But because the guy's name is actually Kerry Edwards the site name will have to be purchased from him. The site looks so crappy you have to wonder if they didn't just buy it up for this purpose and throw some pics on it, that doesn't really matter anymore though (according to ALoTTFMA the site was registered several years ago).

In a CNN interview Kerry Edwards says he's been contacted by several "international companies" looking to buy the site and that he didn't even know the identities of some of the potential buyers who were making offers. The highest offer so far is $150,000, but it sounds like Kerry Edwards is looking for five figures. John Kerry's campaign has called him as well, but apparently aren't offering much. One may wonder why Kerry Edwards, a Democrat, wouldn't just give it to the John Kerry campaign for a "reasonable" price. But seriously, John Kerry's campaign has around $200 million last I checked, and John Kerry himself is sitting on another couple hundred mill at home. I don't blame Kerry Edwards one bit for telling John Kerry to shove it. I would do the same thing in his spot.

I am really nervous for Kerry Edwards though, I think he better sell that site very soon. John Kerry will no doubt register something like "kerryedwards04.com" or "kerryedwards2004.com." The hype surrounding the Kerryedwards.com site name could easily be gone within days, we'll see what happens. I say take the money and run Kerry Edwards!

Via Tech Law Advisor. Also check out The American Mind for some fun Bush v. Kerry daughters action.

Best of luck Glen and Jenee

Best of luck to the newly wedded Glen and Jenee Mora.



(I've just returned from a trip to steamy, sauna-like Florida. Posting will resume.)

9 Out of 10 Reasonable (bipartisan) People Agree, this is out of control!

I just have to point out this ad that is running on the front page of the Washington Times website for "Authentic GOP dot com." They sell t-shirts that read "10 out of 10 terrorists agree anybody but Bush." On their website they ask, "after all, whom would Osama vote for?"

Frankly I am surprised that any paper would run such an ad. I guess the Washington Times is like the New York Post though, pretty much a scandal rag that leans to the right. For instance check out this article by the editor-in-chief of the paper about how Kerry and Edwards "lock eyes frequently in deep contact and stop barely short of demonstrating what great kissers they may be." The headline on the NY Post site is about how Whoopi insulted Bush at a Dem fundraiser

Ah, a quick search is revealing: The Washington Times is owned by "Moonie" cult leader Rev. Sun Myung Moon (of the mass weddings), founder of the Unification Church and a staunch conservative. Moon is also reputed to be a friend of the Bush family. Moon was recently "crowned" by US Congressmen, no seriously, I'm not kidding. Here is an interesting article in the Gadflyer about the coronation (there's more on Wikipedia) and I'm sure there's a ton of stuff about him on Google.

UPDATE: A must see Doonesbury response can be found here. It notes that Bush has been a uniter...he's united Muslims all over the world against the U.S. (and squandered U.S. moral authority). Check it out quick before it is archived.

"Copyscape" - catch people who infringe your copyright online (or be caught)

Check out this amazing new site (still in Beta) called Copyscape. You enter your site address into Copyscape and it tracks down all the sites on the web that have copied your content! The program is really amazing and is made by the same people that created Google Alert.

When I entered my site into Copyscape, there were 15 entries, most of which were due to quotes I had taken from news sources (Copyscape will show you what you have copied as well as what others have copied from you). The most common phrase that turned up for me was "The photos often depicted Barbie dolls placed in sexually provocative positions." This quote comes from a recent post entitled "Mattel gets nailed". I took the quote from a news story, which is linked to in the post.

It remains to be seen haw useful Copyscape will be, or if it will create new copyright litigation based on stealing web postings and news articles.

Via IP News Blog, more at Research Buzz.

Dell DJ vs. Apple iPod, etc.

I have been getting lots of hits based on searches of "iPod vs. DJ." Below is a list of posts on the subject. The basics go like this - a Dell DJ of the same capacity as an iPod (15 or 20 gigs) has much better battery power (nearly double Dell says) and is over $100 cheaper. The DJ also plays WMA files, which the iPod cannot (although the iPod plays AAC [an Apple format], which the DJ does not), both play MP3s of course.

My own experience is that iPods are very problematic, mine regularly wipes its memory and needs its OS reloaded multiple times in a row. Also, if you own a PC you can't charge the iPod while it is plugged into the computer (unlike with Apples) so you can only load part of your playlist at a time between recharges (if it dies during an upload prepare to reload the OS again). Also, the battery on my iPod dies after only a few hours of use (and yes, I've turned off all the battery draining options like the light and equalizer, etc.). Basically, if you buy the iPod you are paying for Apple's marketing campaign but getting less in terms of technology.

I think Dell should be paying me to say anymore on this topic, so I think I'll end it here (until I get a DJ, at which point I will review it).

Here are posts you may want to check out:
iPod vs. Dell DJ
iTunes selling low sound quality MP3s
problems with the iPod minis plus anti-iPod rant
The BBC notes that the iPod is a piece of crap
Save the iPod dot com

If you don't know about Congress' recently introduced INDUCE Act, which may make hard-drive based MP3 players illegal, but want to know more see here:
Hang onto your iPods: Here comes Orrin Hatch
INDUCE Act inducing me to do lots of research
INDUCE Act induces journalists to write some good articles

Microsoft moving along on copying Google

NYT article here. It basically notes that MSN has a new and Googlesqe search page here. The article says that the new MSN search is pretty nice, but still not as good as Google. Just give them time though, they'll spend as much as it takes to grab some of the multi-billion dollar search industry.

I've written several posts on how Google and Microsoft are going for each other's throats. Google is developing a sort of Google OS, and Microsoft is working to copy all of Google's technology and take over their sector of the market.

Here are some previous posts:
The battle for your desktop: MS vs. Google
Microsoft getting into search technology
Google's GooOS?
More on Google OS

Microsoft battling over patent for "ergonomic" keyboards

I had one of these many years ago in college, it was impossible to get used to. Unless you have perfect typing form and never peck at keys it just will not work for you. My sister solved my problems with the keyboard by pouring a Coke into it and then buying me a new "non-ergo" keyboard.

Anyway, Microsoft is currently battling a company called TypeRight Keyboard Corp. in an attempt to invalidate their patent on the keyboard and avoid paying them a licensing fee.

Microsoft in June 2000 won a motion to invalidate the patents. The company argued that the concept of ergonomic keyboards predated TypeRight's patents. Evidence that was presented consisted of an undated document from a German company, Marquardt GmbH, and testimony from paid fact witnesses.

On Tuesday (4 years later), the Court of Appeals in DC just got around to overturing the invalidation because Microsoft's evidence is shakey. The case will now head back to the district court in San Diego. Maybe they'll finish this one off by the time computers don't even come with keyboards anymore, but instead a direct connection to a person's nervous system through a plug in their neck that hooks up to their spinal cord. That would be cool huh?

Article about the keyboard battle here.

Chinese court overturns Viagra patent, etc.

Red parts in the map indicate either population density or hotspots for counterfeiting, whichever.

Pfizer no longer has monopoly rights to the drug Viagra in China. Actually, they will retain their patent rights until the appeal is over.

Foreign drug companies have been watching the case as a test of China's commitment to intellectual property rights. Deputy U.S. Trade Representative Josette Shiner in November called the Viagra patent challenge a "particularly troubling" example of a questionable Chinese commitment to intellectual property rights...Nonetheless, Damond didn't want to attach too much significance to the event. He said the industry's main concern in China is counterfeiting.

China's commitment to IP? What commitment? China (and Russia) are the worst countries when it comes to protecting IP. And really, who can blame them - why would they use their limited resources to protect our companies' IP rights. It isn't that China couldn't do more, they have the resources (whereas Russia probably does not). But why would China protect our IP at the cost of their own developing economy? They wouldn't, of course.

Article about the Viagra patent here.

Story about counterfeit Calloway golf clubs coming into the US from China here:

"There's not a long tradition of respect of intellectual property in China," Herrington says, adding that the money to be made from producing knockoff products in China far outweighs the penalty for getting caught in the process. In some cases, an abuser might have his or her operations suspended for a year, only to return to the industry when sanctions are lifted.

Story about Chinese companies using lookalike labels to sell Kiwi fruit as being from New Zealand:

China's government has been asked to stop the illegal use of counterfeit labels, and the more subtle use of "look-alike packaging" to cash in on New Zealand's Zespri brand, used on 70 per cent of the global kiwifruit supply during the Southern Hemisphere season.

The "Computer Crime Research Center" reports that 25% of all products sold in China are counterfeit:

China and Russia are named among the most malevolent violators of intellectual property rights. According to the Peking Committee on Brands Protection of 90 international companies, about 25% of all Chinese internal market are counterfeit products.

China and Russia are among top violators of software copyright. In the whole, 42% of all programs installed all over the world are pirate, and this figure reaches 90% in the most adverse countries.

iTunes selling low sound quality MP3s?

Everyone knows that the MP3 file type popularized music downloading and CD ripping because it is a compressed version of the original, meaning you can fit lots of them on your harddrive or download them quickly. Compression is a fact of life when it comes to music being used on a computer, because of current bandwidth and harddrive limitations. This doesn't bother most people, certainly when you rip a CD you can set the program that is doing the ripping to record the songs at a bit rate that is high enough that the average listener can't tell the difference between the CD and the MP3. However, if you buy the MP3s from iTunes it may be so low quality that the difference is audible.

Customers [of iTunes] are led to believe that they are getting a CD in all respects except the trouble of going to the mall. The iTunes store does not warn about the permanence of its method of compression; once freeze-dried, there is no way to reconstitute the music into CD quality for playing through a good stereo.

Ah, for simpler times, when we never had reason to look up the bit rate at which music is digitally sampled for CD's: 1,378 kilobits per second. The bit rate for iTunes, 128, is so low that when played side by side against the original, the difference is audible not only to audio enthusiasts, but also to mortals with ordinary hearing. Wes Phillips, contributing editor at Stereophile, says "128 is like an eight-track," and he describes the combination of iPod and iTunes as "buying a 21st-century device to live in the 1970's."

So, if you plan to use the music you buy from iTunes on your home stereo instead of the tinny earbuds you get with the iPod, it may well sound like crap. Tech Law Advisor thinks this sounds like the litigation over the PC harddrive size claims, that it is nitpicky and ridiculous. I have to disagree, I play my music on various systems, and although I'm no audiophile, if I buy MP3s from iTunes then I want ones that sound decent at least. Bringing a lawsuit over this would probably be frivolous though. I have never purchased from iTunes, if you have let me know what you think of the sound quality.

NYT article here. Via Tech Law Advisor.

Mexican group "El Tri" to "keep on rocking" depite being dropped by label due to piracy losses

Something that has always been missing from the disscussion of P2P filesharing and the effect it has on the music industry is how it actually effects the artists themselves. Recording companies know that the public is going to have very little sympathy for them, as corporations that make hundreds of millions or billions of dollars charging $20 a pop for (often crappy) CDs. Typically the music industry trots out it's artists who it claims are really getting shafted. This is probably true for groups like Metallica and Madonna, since they own their own labels and have been around for so long that they have completed their original contracts and renegotiated them.

The fact is though, that most music artists make only pennies for each CD sale. Artists really make the vast majority of their pay from concerts. The LA Times has an article today about how the Mexican music industry has been especially hard hit by piracy, Mexico now ranks #3 in the world for piracy sales, behind only China and Russia. Some labels have even been letting go of popular groups because they aren't making money on CDs anymore.

The very popular Mexican group El Tri is one such group. But, they say:

...the band's main source of income has always come from performing about 250 live shows a year, something that even Mexico's powerful pirates can't take away.

"The commercial [recording industry] may disappear," said Lora, whose group recently celebrated 35 years together. "But we're going to keep rocking."

So, I am not a proponent of copying music illegally but I always look with suspicion when artists themselves say they are losing money because of piracy. For the most part that just isn't true. What the recording companies provide for these groups is marketing and distribution, and they are the big losers from pirating, not the bands.

LA Times article here.