Categories
A Note About Copyright
December 11th, 2009 by Doug Ruchefsky
Last night, I went to my iTunes store to make a (legal) music download, only to find that the download was not possible without an upgrade to the new software. Being forced into a situation with not many options, I begrudgingly downloaded the update and waited for installation. However, before finalizing the upgrade, I decided to take a look at the new user agreement that accompanied the download. In the agreement, I saw all the standard “nonsense” that most people usually gloss over, if they bother to open the document at all. However, at the tail end of the agreement, I noticed a new section that I had never seen before in any of iTunes’ legal documents. The section, titled “A note about copyright,” stated the following:
This software may be used to reproduce materials. It is licensed to you only for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials for which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce. If you are uncertain about your right to copy any material, contact your legal advisor.
For as long as I can remember looking over these types of documents, I honestly don’t think I have ever seen a mention of copyright in any of them before this one. While this is shocking, it seems even more shocking to me that I don’t think I had ever really noticed it before. After this realization, I began to debate with myself whether this “note about copyright” was even necessary? Realistically, how many people even look at this agreement before installing the upgrade? My guess would be not many. Furthermore, for those who actually looked at the agreement and had the visually stamina to make it all the way down to the very bottom of the document, how many people even understood what the section was saying? To everyday people unfamiliar with the complexities of copyright law, iTunes is basically saying, “don’t use our program to reproduce any copyrighted materials…and if you have any questions, feel free to call your lawyer.” The lack of clarity regarding this statement seems to render it useless, and I doubt the results will differ much from when iTunes didn’t even include a clause regarding copyright in their legal documentation at all.
Ultimately, I would agree with iTunes that, in the society we live in today, a clause about copyright would be crucial to any of their legal documents. However, given the lack of universal knowledge about the topic, and given the fact that copyright law is constantly changing, it seems interesting to question why iTunes didn’t decide to just cover all bases with regards to copyright. The section devoted to copyright that currently exists is very vague, and basically implies that you should discuss any copyright questions you may have with your lawyer. Instead, I think it would be wise for iTunes to provide some basic education regarding the details of copyright law, and this could potentially be a great preventative measure to reduce the number of copyright infringements that occur with the program. Apple has already set the standard for innovation with their online iTunes U classes and podcasts, and it seems that a podcast on copyright law would only be logical, and perhaps more effective.
from 2 votesPosted in Uncategorized | tagged Copyright, iTunes, legal documents, update, upgrade | | 0 Comments
Trouble with the (Copyright) Law
November 29th, 2009 by Doug Ruchefsky
Rapper Lil Wayne is one of the most popular artists in the entire music industry, and if there’s any uncertainty in your mind about this, then you most certainly have been living under a rock…or you don’t like rap. Whatever the case may be, there’s no denying that Lil Wayne’s career has absolutely skyrocketed in the past couple of years (proof here). What’s even more impressive is the fact that Lil Wayne a.k.a. Weezy’s success has been achieved in spite of many problems in his personal life. His album Tha Carter III surpassed both expectations and records when it sold over a million copies in its first week of sales, despite being widely leaked online more than a week in advance. Additionally, Wayne battles widely-publicized addictions to weed and cough syrup, and has had issues with gun licenses in the past that have led to his arrest (and now incarceration).
While these issues have been greatly publicized and helped create the persona of Weezy that we know today, he has also dealt with another issue consistently over the course of his career: copyright infringement. If you are unfamiliar with Wayne’s copyright history, google the term “lil wayne copyright infringement” and a quick search will yield about 135,000 different articles. In fact, it can be argued that few artists in history have been affected by the world of copyright law like Lil Wayne has.
In July of 2008, Wayne was sued by a music publishing company that owns the rights to a Rolling Stones song. They said that he had infringed upon the song’s copyright, and that Wayne’s version “poses unfair competition.” When everything was said and done, the song in question, “playing with fire,” was actually removed from the album, several months after it had been released worldwide. This lawsuit is interesting because of the rationale behind it…while they publishing company argued that the song posed unfair competition, I would beg to differ, as a majority of Lil Wayne’s fans have probably never listened to the original song he sampled or even a Rolling Stones song in general. Nevertheless, Wayne was clearly forced to accept guilt and alter the contents of his hit album.
Only a couple of months later, Wayne was again confronted by the long-arm of copyright law, this time for a song he had created entitled “I feel like dying.” Whereas the previous lawsuit regarded a song that was included in his hit album, this song in question was actually never released for commercial download, but instead was leaked to the public in the months prior to the album’s release. The lawsuit attempted to claim monetary damages from Wayne because, even though money might not have been directly received from the song’s sale, “he did intend to profit from [the song].” Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that Weezy is “unjustly enriched” when he performs the song at his sold-out concerts, and that positive feedback from the song and Wayne’s implied association with the song’s originator increased sales of his album.
This lawsuit is unique for several reasons, explains University of Sourthern California Gould School of Law technology and IP professor Jack Lerner to LA Weekly. He states, “This is the first case where a song that hasn’t been sold is the subject in a copyright-law case–and that’s very rare.” He continues, “The big question is, how far can copyright holders go to stifle or silence someone who sampled a song and isn’t selling it, even if they are using it in performances?” This suit seems to open up a whole new can of worms for copyright law, and clearly there seems to be enough blame to go around. Wayne filed a lawsuit in April of this year against the producer who gave him the beat in question, arguing that the producer and his production company were responsible for obtaining any necessary licensing agreements.
It will be incredibly interesting to see where this case will lead, as it has recently been postponed until a further date. No matter what the result, this case could have a huge impact on the way music is produced and created, and copyright law could be altered as a result. Ultimately, it needs to be determined if copyright infringement can occur even if an artist does not profit directly from the sale of a song, and who is truly responsible for clearing permission of song samples. No matter what the outcome, it cannot be denied that Lil Wayne continues to change both the music industry and the copyright law that governs it.
from 7 votesPosted in Uncategorized | tagged Copyright, lawsuit, Lil Wanye, Tha Carter III, Weezy | | 0 Comments
What’s the big deal with Napster?
October 23rd, 2009 by Doug Ruchefsky
I’ll start off this post with a disclaimer: as a writer on this topic, I am extremely biased. If this bothers you as a reader, feel free to move on to the next blog.
In 1999, the Napster phenomenon took off, and from that point on it rarely looked back. To me as an 11 year old boy, Napster was one of God’s creations, a flawless way to ensure that I would never have an unmet need for media content ever again. At that time, I was incredibly ignorant of the way the internet and P2P sites worked and the effect that Napster could have on the music industry as a whole, and I frankly didn’t care. Until Lars Ulrich and Metallica had to get involved.
Though it might seem like heresy to some, I actually remember being relatively unfamiliar with Metallica at the time of the Napster incident. I was into music yes, and I knew the band and what they were about, but overall I didn’t know much more about Metallica as a whole. However, I remember from the moment I saw Lars Ulrich making his statement regarding piracy, he gave me bad vibes. He reminded me of the evil coach of Iceland in the Mighty Ducks 2, Wolf “the dentist” Stausson (see photo comparison). 
All of a sudden, I remember becoming one of Metallica’s biggest haters, and I denounced Ulrich almost every opportunity I had. To me, Napster was perfect, and Ulrich represented everything that was wrong with the world.
In my ignorance, there were two very simple components of my argument as to why I sided with Napster. First, the program was beyond easy to use, and contained all the content I would ever need to keep myself entertained. Who would argue with free and seemingly unlimited content? And second, Ulrich and Metallica seemed to give off a “holier than thou” vibe that rubbed myself and many others the wrong way. At the time, Napster had become wide-spread and incredibly popular, and it had become sort of accepted that piracy was occurring. However, up until that point, piracy wasn’t necessarily viewed as that much of a bad thing, at least in my mind, for two reasons. The Metallica song that started the controversy, ‘I Disappear,’ and the band itself received a lot more publicity and popularity as a result of the Napster controversy, so in my mind the band should have actually thanked Shawn Fanning for their resurgence in popularity around that time. Additionally, Metallica came off as a band that was only concerned with making money, and so I think Napster was also used as a potential method of “sticking it to the man,” the man in this case being the music industry. Without Napster, I would have never heard ‘I disappear’ or any other of Metallica’s works, and it was actually because of the program that I discovered I actually liked them.
It’s been almost a decade since the Lars Ulrich-Napster controversy, and the topic still garners a lot of attention and controversy. However, opinions have no doubt changed since that time. As the years progressed and P2P sites became more popular and understood, I realized that we were in fact taking profits away from those artists who rightfully deserve them, and maybe programs like Napster weren’t other-worldly applications after all. I don’t really support one side or the other in this matter, and I try to differentiate between artists who deserve to profit versus those who don’t when making my music purchase decisions.
However, it seems apparent that the sentiments of Lars Ulrich and Metallica may have also changed as well. Taken from his Wikipedia is a quote by Ulrich in which he states, “I wish that I was more…you know, I felt kind of ambushed by the whole thing because I didn’t really know enough about what we were getting ourselves into when we jumped. [...] We didn’t know enough about the kind of grassroots thing, and what had been going on the last couple of months in the country as this whole new phenomenon was going on. We were just so stuck in our controlling ways of wanting to control everything that had to do with Metallica. So we were caught off guard and we had a little bit of a rougher landing on that one than on other times than when we just blindly leap. But you know, I’m still proud of the fact that we did leap… and I took a lot of hits and it was difficult.” It’s interesting to see how my feelings about piracy have somewhat converged with Ulrich’s over the years since the controversy. We went from having polarizing views on the topic to being more conflicted with the issue because, as we have gained a greater understanding about the issue, we understand what is truly at stake and how this could impact the entire industry in the future.
from 13 votesPosted in Uncategorized | tagged Metallica, Napster, Ulrich | | 1 Comments
I Tube, You Tube, We All Tube for YouTube
September 19th, 2009 by Doug Ruchefsky
In response to a well-written post in Blanck’s Boring Blog, I decided to start off my semester as the “unablogger” by discussing the legality of the online video sector of the internet. While this sector includes a vast array of websites, YouTube, Hulu, and Google Video seem to attract the majority of focus in this copyright battle. The truth is, the legality behind these video sharing websites is disputed on a daily basis, and the existing copyright law is so convoluted, it can actually argue both for and against the existence of these sites. As Jason astutely notes in his blog post, “the legal battle between Viacom and YouTube will continue on for some time.” That’s not to say, however, that progress is not being made in this matter.
Just last week, a federal district court ruled that Veoh, a once-popular website that served as a predecessor to YouTube and Hulu, “is not liable for the copyright violations committed by its users.” The article can be viewed here. While Veoh may not be the most prevalent of online-video websites today, this decision may also help YouTube in its defense against the $1 billion copyright suit filed by Viacom that Jason mentions in his blog.
While representatives from Viacom state that this ruling has no real parallels to their case against YouTube and “remain confident that we (Viacom) will prevail on the law and the facts,” I see through this p.r. spin and smell fear. The U.S. District Judge presiding over the case, A. Howard Matz, ruled that Veoh “is protected against these claims by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.” In response to this judgement, a member of YouTube’s chief counsel said, “With the DMCA, Congress intended to foster online platforms like YouTube, which empower users, offer new distribution channels for content owners, and respect copyright.”
Judge Matz points to the safe harbor provision of the DMCA in his ruling. Courtesy of some FAQ, we can see that the safe harbor provision “exempts on-line service providers that meet the criteria set forth in the safe harbor provisions from claims of copyright infringement made against them that result from the conduct of their customers.” The provision clarifies further, “If a service provider qualifies for the safe harbor exemption, only the individual infringing customer are liable for monetary damages; the service provider’s network through which they engaged in the alleged activities is not liable.”
The ruling ultimately found that websites like Veoh must take reasonable steps to stop copyright infringement once they’ve been made aware of its existence on their sites. It is clear from Jason’s failed attempt to find Kanye West embarrass himself on YouTube that the website, like its predecessors, is taking the appropriate steps to prevent blatant examples of copyright infringement from occurring.
One final observation is made by Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. While Viacom and YouTube are engaged in this all-out battle that could be monumental for copyright law moving forward, there are much smaller cases that have been just as effective in establishing a precedent for the interpretation of the law. By the time the YouTube case goes to trial likely sometime next year, it is very possible that several cases may have already established a basis for the website to declare their innocence legally.
Unless Viacom can prove that YouTube knowingly allowed copyright infringement to occur on its website, it seems to me that there is not much of a case to be made.
from 16 votesPosted in Uncategorized | tagged DMCA, Veoh, Viacom, YouTube | | 1 Comments
Blog Test
September 19th, 2009 by Doug Ruchefsky
Test 1,2. Test 1,2.
from 2 votesPosted in Uncategorized | | | 0 Comments
Recent Class Posts
Authorship
One of the most interesting nuances of copyright that I had never fully considered is authorship. Wh- A New Expression of Old Ideas:
To be honest, before taking this course I never really thought about the topic of mash-ups. Yeah, I 
iStockphoto.com!
I’m pretty sure this will be my last blog post, so I’d first like to say thanks to everyone who- Final Conclusions
After finishing my final paper (yay!) and reflecting upon this course, I realize the “all is lost - Reflection
The last lecture for this class is over, and I must say I’m left wondering what the purpose of the
