Archive for July, 2011

PayPal’s Progressive Movement against Internet Copyright Infringement

Saturday, 30 July, 2011 06:00 Written by Aaron B. Thalwitzer 0 Comments
Share via email

John Frazier Jr., Guest Author

Internet copyright infringement is a growing concern. PayPal, an online payment service, is trying to do their part to halt copyright infringers. PayPal is vastly popular among those who use the internet for transactions. It offers a secure transaction between two parties over a largely unsecure territory (the internet).

PayPal is strengthening their policy of banning the use of its service for items that violate or infringe any copyright under its Acceptable Use Policy. In effect, this will go further in stopping the use of PayPal by illegal sites internationally that sell or offer infringed material. The focus is upon illegal music but I assume that the casted net would include the selling of bootleg movies. This move has been coordinated with the City of London Police.

For a retailer to use PayPal it must provide proof of licensing for the content that it is selling (addressed more specifically: music licenses). If PayPal discovers any fishy business then it will discontinue the service from those retailers.

Carl Scheible, managing director of PayPal UK, said, “Today’s announcement shows that PayPal is very serious about fighting music piracy. We’ve always banned PayPal’s use for the sale of content that infringes copyright, and the new system will make life even harder for illegal operators. Our partnership with the music industry helps rights holders make money from their own content while stopping the pirates in their tracks.”

A progressive step in the right direction. Kudos.

Avengers and X-Men to stay with Marvel

00gravitar-RD
Friday, 29 July, 2011 00:01 Written by Rene Dial 5 Comments
Share via email

By: Rene Dial

 

With the extreme popularity of X-Men, Iron Man, and the Avengers you know there is going to be a suit somewhere by someone.

This fight started around September of 2009 when Jack Kirby’s four children served Notices of Termination of all copyright grants to Marvel.  Paragraph 14 of the complaint below lists some of the comic book heavy weights that Kirby’s children want back control of.  With the recent success of the X-Men prequel, Iron Man, and the Avengers who would not want control of them.

Jack Kirby passed away in 1994 and it was not till September of 2009 that Kirby’s children attempted to terminate the grants of copyrights.  Of course we can say that it is the success of the movies adapted from the comics that was the catalyst for this suit.  Marvel decided to bring the fight to the Kirbys by filing a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment on January 8, 2010.  The Complaint alleged that any contribution from Jack Kirby was a work for hire and that the termination provisions of the 1976 Copyright Act do not apply.  A full copy of the Complaint can be found at docs.justia.com.

According to The WallStreetJournal.com on Thursday July 29, 2011 a federal court judge ruled that the copyrights were a work for hire as Jack Kirby signed a document acknowledging that he had created works as works for hire back in June of 1972.

Of course the Kirby children are sticking to their guns and plan on appealing the verdict.  Something tells me that it is going to take a superhero to come to the rescue of the Kirbys.  With documents that Mr. Kirby executed attesting that the creations were works for hire and the fact that he never contested ownership of the copyrights when he was alive. The Kirbys’ claims seem doomed.  But hey crazier things have happened!

Tuber? Super.

Thursday, 28 July, 2011 22:17 Written by Danie Roy 2 Comments
Share via email

Danie Roy

I don’t watch a whole lot of TV, but I do love a good heist show and unique characters. That’s why I love watching Leverage… a collection of outrageous characters playing the part of a Robin Hood business. I am beyond willing to suspend disbelief for some of the hacking, some of the heists… but I do occasionally feel the need to nitpick.  Like this past episode, “The Hot Potato Job.”

Careful. Wars have been fought over this.

Without giving away spoilers, the ownership of a potato is contested between a mega company that wants to make money from the genetically engineered root, while a farm girl/genetic engineer wants to distribute the potato to poor families for free. At some point in the episode, one of the representatives of the mega company claims that the potato is subject to the copyright that belongs to the company.

WHAT. Copyright? On PLANTS? I think not.

Okay, plants can be patented, but not COPYRIGHTED. But, the issue remains: the potato is a tuberous plant. The MPEP specifically forbids the patenting of tuberous plants (see 1601, or 35 USC 161).

Honestly, I was almost willing to let this one slip by. I might not have even noticed the discrepancy if the characters hadn’t kept referring to the potato in question as a “super tuber.”

Just like that, actually.

I realize that not every writer has the time, pay, or energy to look up the exact details for every episode, but this is definitely a glaring case of did not do the research.

And another thing… why does this chick only keep ONE potato when she wants to grow a whole crop? Let’s put all our potatoes in one basket. Nothing could possibly go wrong with this plan.

Angry Birds Developer Latest Invitee to the Lodsys Patent Infringement Party

Wednesday, 27 July, 2011 09:34 Written by Mark Malek 0 Comments
Share via email

By: Mark R. Malek

This story hits a little close to home because of my love for the Angry Birds game.  I don’t think it is the game that gets me so much as it is the noises that the birds make as they are rocketed from a sling shot to perform all manner of acrobats while destroying a structure in hopes of making a green blob explode.  It doesn’t hurt that the games are generally free through the Android Marketplace or the App Store.

We are so confused by this Patent Troll

Going past the free levels, however, is where the problem allegedly lies.  Although many of the levels are free, there are some additional levels that are available for purchase by users.  According to this story on Benzinga, which sites another story on The Telegraph, the Lodsys patent allegedly includes claims that cover a method for allowing players to purchase new levels inside its mobile application.  (See also this story on CBR)

Of course, the common theme that I have been seeing in many of these stories is that there is a problem with allowing patents on software – let the comments begin.  I, of course, do not see any problem with patents on software.  Many software developers disagree, but I do not believe that they are applying U.S. patent law when making their arguments.  In short, a U.S. patent, and patents in general, are meant to provide protection on the functionality of an invention.  So what is wrong with protecting the functionality of a piece of software?  The software field is so crowded, that any allowable software patent application is generally focused on a very specific function, and the manner in which that function is carried out.  We got a bit (a very little bit) of direction from the United States Supreme Court in their Bilski decision a little over a year ago (see my story on Bilski here), and with that, we were presented with the “machine or transformation” test, but were also told that this test was not the only test out there.  I guess we will have to wait and see what other tests there are, but we know that “machine or transformation” does not stand alone.

I was pleased to read the article regarding this matter by my good friend Gene Quinn, founder of IPWatchDog.com, and one of the teachers of the patent bar review course presented by PLI.  Gene points out what I believe is the bigger issue – the patent troll.  Gene notes that a patent troll generally gets the process started by finding an attorney willing to take a patent infringement case on contingency, and filing a complaint riddled with broad allegations.  That is part of the reason why the story’s regarding this Angry Birds infringement matter are a bit vague.  We are not too sure what aspect of the Angry Birds game is allegedly infringing.

We will have to wait and see how this, and the other Lodsys suits, turns out.  It will be interesting to see if Apple keeps out of this somehow.

RIHANNA GETS SMACKED WITH LAWSUIT

Tuesday, 26 July, 2011 17:50 Written by danieldavidson 2 Comments
Share via email

By Daniel Davidson

It has been said, “Ain’t nothing gonna break my stride, nobody’s gonna slow me down.”  Considering all that Rihanna has been through, including being smacked with a copyright infringement suit, those words have never ringed truer.

In a complaint filed by fashion photographer David LaChappelle, the man with the magic lens claims that Rihanna’s S&M video violates his copyrights.  Particularly, LaChappelle asserts that 8 of his photographs were likened in her video.

On Thursday of last week, U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin paved the way for the copyright infringement suit by allowing the photographer to pursue his copyright claims, but did dismiss the trade-dress, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment claims.

Should LaCheppelle prevail over the vixen, he would be entitled to actual damages sustained by him plus any additional profits that Rihanna makes that are not used in calculating the actual damages. (§504 of the Copyright Act)  Another avenue that LaCheppelle could take in recovering monetary damages if he prevails is, at any time before Summary Judgment is rendered, he may ask the Court to award him statutory damages.  This would allow him an award of anywhere from $750 to $30,000. (At the discretion of the Court)  Or, if the Court finds it was committed willfully, the Court can increase the award to no more than $150,000.

Obviously, he must win before he gets a dime, but a pay day because someone else feels they can copy you, by all means.  Cheers.

« Older Entries

Subscribe

Login



SATURDAY, MAY 25, 2013

Bad Behavior has blocked 11103 access attempts in the last 7 days.