MySpace & the fight against Copyright Infringement

Looking for ideas to write for this blog, I came across this article. It seems that MySpace, everyone’s favorite past time, especially during class, is launching a project to assist in the continuing struggle against copyright infringement.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/WdCKRE2kdjsgza/MySpace-Attacks-Video-Piracy-With-New-Tech.xhtml

Summarizing what I read, MySpace’s project identifies content from large and small companies to assist in the protection of their creations where by they are even solicitating movie and TV content providers to participate in the program if they are not already enlisted.

The article touches upon the fact that MySpace.com & other sites like YouTube.com are at odds with copyright holders for materials that they allow to be displayed. The Article states that this is a proactive measure that they are taking to heading off potential copyright lawsuits and other disputes that may arise. Also stated in the article is that present recourse that content owners have through the DCMA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act), also referred to as a Safe Harbor Provision that provides a content owner a window to take down any infringed material among other rights, may be supplemented by this.

http://www.copyright.gov/reports/studies/dmca/dmca_executive.html

I found that the article brings attention to many issues, such as what really constitutes infringement? At what point will a company claim that their copyright is being infringed… surely when a video is played, but how about just displaying a picture? Is a copyright an absolute right or aren’t we allowed Fair-Use?

And in the end, how will this affect companies like MySpace… in an attempt to help protect themselves from copyright lawsuits, did the open Pandora’s box? Is this going to serve as a safeguard or will it inevitably just be a restriction that will need to be litigated down the road

The Right to Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Lubricant

Well it doesn’t have much to do with Entertainment Law (ok well maybe a little bit), but I’m having some issues. I had my First Amendment class today and we were talking about free speech (obviously), but we started talking about certain standards of what possibly should be restricted speech. Then of course people started talking – which is a good thing in a class like this. BUT, today it was just ridiculous. There are a few women in our class who have families, and very often they relate what we are talking about in some way to their children. Personally, I don’t have a problem with this, everyone brings whatever they want to the table and that’s what makes the class great. Today, because we were talking about the obscenity restrictions, a woman in our class started talking about ho she felt certain things should not be on television. The specific thing that was brought up was a commercial for personal lubricant. She stated that she felt the commercial, though done “as tastefully as possible most likely”, was what she considered to be obscene. Once she stated numerous other women in the class spoke up in agreement. They all went on further to say how difficult it is to explain those things to a child. The discussion was centered on the lack of restrictions that we have on television nowadays, and how that affects children. According to them, they should have a right not have to feel embarrassed with their child when a commercial for personal lubricant comes on after dinner while they’re watching Everybody Loves Raymond.
Honestly, I GUESS I can kind of understand where they are coming from, slightly, ever so slightly. And I really do applaud their parenting skills, BUT I have some issues with this. First of all, I understand that you might not want to explain the intricacies of personal lubricant usage to your 6 year old. HOWEVER, don’t I have a right to not live my life like I’m a 6 year old? I think Howard Stern said it best when he stated, “I always hear, ‘what about the kids, what about the children’ well what about me?” And it’s true – what about me? I’m not under my parents’ roof anymore, let alone having my television watching monitored – why shouldn’t I be able to see a commercial like that. Maybe I’m in the market for a new personal lubricant, maybe it is truly to my benefit to be able to see that commercial. And even if you wanted to put some kind of time, place and manner restriction on it (if there isn’t one already), is a commercial of a woman sitting on a bed in pajamas with candles around her (JUST HER) really just too much? I would think you would see more disturbing things on the news!
The other thing that really just got to me was the whole argument of, “well you don’t know if you don’t have kids.” I’m sorry if you don’t want your kids to see certain things on TV, and I KNOW you can’t monitor them 24-7, but why should I have to alter what I get to see because your little Johnny is curious about some stuff he sees? And PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not tell me that I don’t understand your argument because I myself do not have kids. Yes, I do not, however, that does not make me brain dead and simply because you are Offspring-Active does not mean you are either… SO let’s think about this stuff rationally, don’t just do the parental defensive thing where no one can give a valid opinion/answer to your argument simply because they have not been specifically in your shoes. Just because I have chosen not to go down that road in life yet does not mean I cannot bring up valid rebuttal arguments to yours when it comes to a First Amendment discussion. It’s not that I mind people given their opinions, as I stated previously, that’s one of the few great things about law school – but I do have a problem when your opinions are dismissed simply because you may look at things in a different perspective.
SO basically, the whole point of this little tirade was, let’s all just respect everyone’s opinions (even if you feel your perspective is more enlightened when it comes to something) when it comes to First Amendment issues because you KNOW where there’s free speech there’s opinions. And secondly, I have a right to know that my local drugstore will be stocking a “new and exciting product brought to me by KY”, I have a right to learn about that on the TV and I shouldn’t have to wait till 3 am to see it.

FCUK… FCUK what?

So unlike kim, I am just going to post things that I found quite interesting and I know are some what relevant to what we do in class.

Ever since the commencement of this class, again law school has perverted my views that everything is in some way related to what we are exposed to in class and school. As we have been looking into copyrights in music and video, what is creative and what is just dupicated… I found myself looking into trademarks also. What is a copyrighted trademark etc, and with the help of CC (yes I cited you) I came across this article:

www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=%5CCulture%5Carchive%5C200405%5CCUL20040521d.html

In class we briefly touched upon the topic of whether a person can copyright an acronym, I beleive Randazzo said that it was possible. Then I read this article and saw that it is, but due to what it could be mistaken as or read like, there seems to be a controversay about it. I did see that this is a lil old, but I am looking into what became of this… I shall post its out come as soon as I find out.

arvind galabya

Introduction

So for my upper level writing requirement (that we all happily have to do here at Barry) I am writing a paper on race and copyright law in the music industry, it’s called, “The Theft of Black Music: A Look into a Cultural Dynamic, Built or Destroyed by Our Nation’s Copyright Laws.” Though I am new to the subject, overall I believe most copyright laws to be legitimate and good for the industries that it involves – it makes sense to use these laws so as to make sure the Intellectual Property arena does not become a [for lack of a better term] free-for-all. However, I do realize that these laws are not full-proof, there are some things, and people for that matter, that fall between the cracks. That statement encompasses an entire group, generation and genre of music – this being most “black” music prior to the 1970’s.

I am going to explore the possible reasons of why black artists were not given credit for their works. Numerous possibilities, from unequal bargaining power in society as a whole, all the way to the clash between the very structural and concrete nature of copyright law and essentially the “oral” backbone of black artistic works in African American culture, can be considered to blame for this phenomenon. But most importantly, I am going to research if these actions still occur in our current Entertainment sector of law. All of this turns on the fact of there being constant controversy in Entertainment Law – which is more important, the creative work or the laws it must abide by?

Kim Harchuck

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!