Jenna Jameson, Internet IP Law Activist
Fleshbot (a frequently updated web magazine which showcases all the porn that digital technology and distribution has made possible) has a post on Jameson challenging Acacia's claim to control a streaming media patent. This is the third female adult entertainment actress I've come across who is interested in Law. There must be something sexy about it.
May 7, 2004
Orkut Info Offered to the Outside
Danny Sullivan: "at least one company got a good chunk of data, as shown by the Orkut Personal Network Geomapper. It lets you look up anyone in the Orkut database at the time the information was mined, then see their connections. So far, I haven't found that any personal data is being revealed beyond the names of your connections. However, no doubt that personal data is part of the information that was mined, an embarrassment for Google."
update: Google issues C&D to close the Orkut Personal Network Geomapper web site.
May 6, 2004
If downloaders are spitting on the Constitution...
and "devaluing the American way of life", then I can't even imagine what Andrew Burt thinks of uploaders and pirates.
Mr. Burt, you say the "Constitution is the blueprint that defines who and what we are as a country." Then tell me why do you associate yourself with the MPAA, who lobbies to take away what the Copyright clause has granted. If we're to start the name calling maybe we should call those who would deny copyright for "limited times" or who would create new "copyright" laws to punish once legal activities TRAITORS to the CONSTITUTION. I mean based on what you state above, it would seem to be a valid extension of your argument.
Frank Field pointed me to IP News Blog, who discusses the MPAA's new education efforts: "a $200k MPAA-inspired educational infusion seems misguided and wrong. Especially one that hinges on lying to children about the boundaries in the copyright line."
The Uncivil Litigator
It seems like I've been missing alot of interesting stuff from not aggregating this site. The C2 Media posts are great.
UCL on Death of the Supremacy Clause: "To defend himself, Timothy brought actual copies of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Comty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969) and Barber v. Dearborn Schools, 286 F.Supp.2d 847 (E.D.Mich. 2003) to show Mr. Charles. Mr. Charles responded to these citations by telling Tim and his mother that school board policy takes precedence over the Constitution."
May 5, 2004
When One Man's Art Is Another's Crime
Jon Routson used to videotape the filmic experience of going to the movies in Baltimore theaters. You know the sounds, coughs, ringing cell phones, people singing along to the soundtrack, whatever. His images were wobbly, distorted and grainy. Not very Seinfeldian. Not what I'd pay $5 for on every street corner in Manhattan either? 
This is his art. Which Roberta Smith says is similar to the "appropriation artists of the early 1980's, who rephotographed existing photographs as a way of commenting on society." Roberta Smith, When One Man's Video Art Is Another's Copyright Crime, NYT.
I say "used to" because Maryland will be joining (Oct. 1) a growing list of states, which includes NY, that "make the unauthorized use of an audiovisual recording device in a movie theater illegal ... The Senate Judiciary Committee also recently approved a bill to make the unauthorized copying and distribution of movies a federal offense." Id.
My question then is -- should copyright prohibit filming one's own experiences, when there is no intent to distribute or profit from what could be considered a personal use derivative work? Isn't this artist merely using the "work" and not the copyright? Should we allow the film industry to fiercely lobby for this seperate law, when copyright law should already protect their interests in preventing mass duplication and redistribution of illegal copies of movies shot in theaters? Especially when "most illegal copies were either duplicates of stolen copies or were shot from tripods in projection booths." Id.
Copyright is supposed to protect consumers as well. As Professor L. Ray Patterson explains: "The copyright owner, by reason of the Copyright Act and the copyright clause, has not only no right to interfere, but a duty not to interfere with the consumer's use of a publicly disseminated work."
no adsense feeds, please
Should Grandma pony up $3,500 to RIAA for grandson's dl'ing?
heraldtribune.com reports that a grandmother's AOL account information was subpoenaed by the RIAA, whose lawyer Jonathan Whitehead said she infringed about 500 copyrighted recordings. Her 16-year-old grandson downloaded songs using Kazaa, as part of a school project, which she subsequently erased. "I had to make the sound track to 'Romeo and Juliet'," he said. "Really, I'm not the only one doing it. Everyone at my school is doing it, they just haven't gotten caught."
Sun's thoughts on disclaimers
Disclaimers: "Many bloggers put a disclaimer on their front page saying who they work for, but that they’re not speaking officially. This is good practice, but don’t count it to avoid trouble; it may not have much legal effect." [via]
May 4, 2004
FCC Bombarded by Oprah Indecency Complaints
The FCC has received more than 1600 letters complaining about the racy March 18 Oprah broadcast demanding that the talk show host be cited for indecency. FCC Swamped With Oprah Indecency Complaints (Stern, Kimmel fans attack Winfrey teen sex show), The Smoking Gun.
One of the FCC complaints that TSG received, via their FOIA request, was from Citizens against Unclean Network Trash. While another requests a ban on free speech so this never happens again.
Defamer Launches
Nick Denton launches another blog channel with Defamer, a media and celebrity gossip rag penned anonymously from L.A. As far as I can tell so far its main topics are The O.C., Kabbalah and the lovely and talented "jail bait enabling" Tina Fey.
I saw that the potential launch was mentioned in one of EverythingNY's NY Blogger Event posts and now Denton has confirmed it via email.
With a name like that I imagine they could probably use lots of help with understanding libel law (there used to be a site that covered such things). I'll be on the lookout for any dicey bits that may spur nasty cease and desist letters or even better some much needed website related litigation; maybe this post about the sappy Friends finale will kick things off.
I printed out Google's S-1 but it's too heavy
but here are some choice quotes as I trudge through it:
Holman Jenkins also offers a few choice quotes and analysis of his own. Google Baloney, WSJ [sub req].
just wondering
May 3, 2004
stay between the lines
California artist, Brandon Bird, has produced the "Law & Order" coloring book. Anne K. McMillan, Crayons and Crime, Texas Lawyer [via].
talk about guilt by association
"Given the interconnected nature of the World Wide Web (they don't call it a "web" for nothing), just about any site with hyperlinks 'could eventually access' something sinister. Al-Hussayen's trial ... illustrates the difficulty of deciding when "links to terrorism" should be treated as a crime." Jacob Sullum, Links to Terrorism (Build a Web site, go to jail), reasononline [via].
Update (6/10/04): Enabling Free Speech is Not a Crime
May 2, 2004
Kevin J. Heller, Esq.
Previous Posts
Technorati
ProfileCosmos
Credits
Hosting by WebHost4LifeComments by HaloScan
Wishlist by Amazon
Aggregation by SharpReader
Syndicate this Site
[?] [!]
Newsletter
SiteSearch
Read what I Read
