On Sept. 12, 2011, the 9th Cir. issued a ruling upholding a U.S. web host’s liability for hosting a Chinese-based counterfeiting retailer. Akanoc has been embroiled in a legal battle since 2009, when designer Louis Vuitton brought suit after Akanoc ignored numerous take down notices from the designer.
Trial by jury was not kind to defendants prior to the 9th Cir. decision.
When former Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart saw Electronic Arts Sports’ NCAA Football game, he recognized something: himself. The premise of the video game is that individuals can play as any College Division I football player, against a community of gamers appropriating other players’ likenesses as their own. Much like Fantasy Football, where players can create leagues and rosters of their own, NCAA Football gamers can manipulate players’ characteristics, including their names.
Hart sued EA in 2009 for using his likeness (which included stats, physicality and his number while playing for Rutgers). He alleged that EA violated his publicity rights, and was joined in the suit by former University of California quarterback Troy Taylor.
On Sept. 11, 2011, the suit was tossed out by U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson, who found that EA’s First Amendment rights outweighed Hart’s publicity rights. Because the nature of the game allows for gamers to alter the likeness of the players, the court determined that the work was transformative enough to warrant separate copyright protection.
For a video breakdown of the ruling by Legal Broadcast Network (LBN), see below:
Soon, you may be able to video chat, update your status, play “Words with Friends,” and listen to your more musically inclined friends’ song recommendations, all from Facebook. (And we were worried about Apple taking over the world?)
On September 22, developers from around the world will gather in San Francisco for f8, Facebook’s annual development conference. It is there that Facebook mastermind Mark Zuckerberg will reveal the new features and plans for the world’s largest social networking site. Last year at f8, Facebook revealed the universal “Like” button, as well as many internal features invisible to regular users.
In the month leading up to this year’s conference, the fuss has largely been about the close relationship between Facebook and Spotify, which claims boldly on their homepage that “FREE Music is Here.” It’s no secret that music brings people together, and Facebook is the perfect place to share music with friends. Aside from Spotify, there are talks of Pandora, iTunes, and many other music sites hopping aboard the Facebook train.
An avid Facebook and Grooveshark user myself, I’m excited at the prospect of sharing and listening to music with and through my Facebook friends. However, I also cannot help but wonder what the legality for this new built-in must look like.
Record stores are going out of business and it’s clear why: MP3s allow for faster access, higher quality, and easy sharing. Records and CDs are rapidly becoming a stop off on memory lane, nostalgically representing a time when things were things. Today, things (like music) are intangible, fluid ribbons of space, transmitted throughout the world in the blink of an eye, and often without care for boundaries of law or geography.
In what many consider to be a particularly confusing and contrary decision, the 2nd Circuit affirmed a 2007 District Court ruling that established that downloaded music does not constitute a “public performance” for the purpose of copyright protection. In its decision, the Appeals Court walked through the language of Section 101 of the Copyright Act, reasoning that music transmitted through a player is not “recited,” “rendered,” or “played” as required by the Copyright Act for public performance protection. Further, it determined that performance requires “contemporaneous perceptibility,” which is lacking here.
The case is American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers v. United States, and on September 26, the Supreme Court will be determining whether to hear it.
Generally speaking, the process for acquiring music digitally is a passive one: users log into the system, search for the music they want, and select “Download.” On P2P interfaces (peer-to-peer), one gains access to other users’ music by uploading his own. The Court thought that because the download itself is so passive (and not performative), the digital copy is therefore also not performative.
There have been several amicus briefs written on the case, and it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court will handle the issue.
Critics of the District and Appeals Courts’ decision argue that it aligns itself squarely against the Copyright Act, and (perhaps more importantly) the legislative and policy interests it was designed to further and protect. However, it should be noted the portion of the Copyright Act at issue here was passed in 1976, the same year that the RIAA introduced “Platinum” status for artists who sold one million records. The creation of “going platinum” served to accommodate the immense sales from disco music. In short, the Copyright Act was written when things were things, and things have changed.
The debate in which the Supreme Court will engage when deciding this issue will probably largely turn on policy questions, both as to the specific industries of music production and technology, and to copyright protection in general.
Twitter has become reflective of a global culture, and created a culture all its own. A quick browse of the day’s trending topics will serve you well at a business meeting or cocktail party when you need a piece of topical humor. Indeed, when an earthquake shook the east coast last week, Twitter was flooded with updates and photos. Twitter allows for more than simply personal quips; it allows for shortened news updates, snappy editorial commentary, and even endorsements.
According to CNN, Yahoo, Fox, and E! Entertainment News, Kim Kardashian (a professional ________?) makes $10,000 for every 140-character blurb she Tweets. Celebrities wield immense power to make or break brands by mentioning them on Twitter, and brands are cashing in on the audience. Many have been shocked and dismayed by the revelation that brands would pay celebrity Twits to mention them to their followers, but isn’t that the exact game we’re all playing? We Tweet to be heard. If someone had a larger megaphone, wouldn’t you use it?
When Facebook hit the masses, many people hadn’t mastered the idea of “privacy” (and the fact that in a virtual world, there is none), and exercised no filter in their posts and pictures. Some of that has changed, thanks to a few stories of people losing jobs and spouses thanks to their Facebooking. Facebook has even been essential in solving crimes and prosecuting offenders.
Because one of Twitter’s features is the ability to “Follow” someone without their consent or knowledge, the scope and magnitude of a popular person’s Tweets are immense. For celebrities who MoneyTweet, it’s been a positive addition to their personal brand. However, it’s landed others in hot water with agents, labels, and even the law.
Johnny Gill, the former frontman for popular R&B group New Edition is one of many to have suffered backlash from his Tweets. He Tweeted that Notifi Records, his record label, had leaked one of his songs using another artist to supplement vocals. He also badmouthed Notifi’s CEO, calling her “f_ing nuts” among other things. Notifi’s CEO Ira DeWitt has filed suit for libel and is seeking punitive damages as well as an injunction.
Welcome to WordPress.com. After you read this, you should delete and write your own post, with a new title above. Or hit Add New on the left (of the admin dashboard) to start a fresh post.
Here are some suggestions for your first post.
Leeward Legality 