Hey guys just a reminder the brown bag tomorrow is at 1215 in Pardee 102B

To combat music piracy some bands have begun trying a radically new business model for selling their music. They are giving it away. By making some of their music available online for free, these bands are managing to make just as much money as they did the conventional way. They have completely gotten rid of the need for record companies as they are able to interact directly with fans. This enables the bands to also sell their music extremely cheaply because every single dollar of the profit goes directly to them, instead of the record company taking its cut. Here we can see that piracy can be combated without the use of lawmaking.

The University of Phoenix is suing Chegg for selling answers to their homework and offering some of their entire course syllabii online. I thought this was an interesting case because if Chegg is putting together a curriculum for, for example, differential equations, then there is only a limited amount of material that the class covers. So, is information copyrighted as well? Does the University of Phoenix have the right to restrict Chegg from posting their curriculum because the two are similar?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/03161322186/magician-sued-teller-copyright-infringement-has-tried-disappearing-act-response.shtml

I enjoyed the play much more than I thought I would, especially considering I thought it would be like the typical Arabian Nights telling. I liked how it was set in the present, and that despite the time difference between the stories, the moral was applicable in our lives. However, that does bring up an interesting question in copyright – did Mary Zimmerman have to request the rights for each of those individual stories? Or did she simply use the public domain for those? How do anonymously told legends and stories become copyrighted, or is anyone allowed to use them?

In an article I found, one magician is suing another magician for copying the original magician’s trick. This brings up an interesting question, how far should copyright extend? Should actions be copyrighted as well, or just objects? The magician in question has fled the country and is doing a successful job of evading charges by simple having his whereabouts be unknown. So, how far should copyright extend? How can a law protect an action? To what extend should this be done? For example, if a coach on a sports team comes up with a particular play or technique, should it be copyrighted and not allowed to be passed on?

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130304/03161322186/magician-sued-teller-copyright-infringement-has-tried-disappearing-act-response.shtml

I did a little research and stumbled upon the book “Complex Copyright” which mentions that copyright does not just affect obvious creative works such as pieces of art and literature, but also such things as maps and software. Although I had known this in the back of my mind, I never really thought about how strange it is that even objects such as maps can be copyrighted. It made me think of other creative works that may be copyrighted that many people do not immediately associate with creative works. I know that I have never really looked at maps in a creative manner, for example. I have always seen them as being much more factual and not really having an author.

http://0-site.ebrary.com.libcat.lafayette.edu/lib/lafayettecol/docDetail.action?docID=10518240

When I was browsing the internet trying to find an article to use for our blog today, I came across this article about the rapper RZA, who is suing Meiko Kaji for demanding compensation for using a part of his song. The one part of this article that popped out to me was towards the end when one of RZA’s lawyers points out that the part Meiko Kaji wants compensation for is “so simple that the least talented person in the studio could have replayed it had anyone wished to do so”. I found this interesting because it ask the question what makes something worthy of protecting? Just because this was a simple piece of work does that necessarily mean it should not be able to have the same protection?

Article

I decided to go into Arabian Nights with a copyright mind frame, but honestly found myself not thinking about any of that while I was actually watching the show. I found myself absorbed in the stories not even fully understanding how these were all stories within stories. I loved the design of the stage and I thought all of the costumes were well done. Overall, I enjoyed the play. However, I found the first act way more entertaining then the second act which focused on a more serious side of the play.

I recently just read an article that discusses the performing rights of artist. The article describes how Taylor Swifts’ performing rights organization BMI was suing a North Dakota bar for playing her music without paying a licensing fee. I thought this was extremely interesting because for the first time the singer was actually in the middle of the lawsuit. The lawsuit involves performance rights and venues. A venue must pay royalties in order to play certain musicians songs. This particular case is interesting because it really shows both the strength of the law and the complication of the law.

When I think about the complication of the law, my mind immediately goes to Paul Goldstein and his opinions on copyright. Although Goldstein believes in having a strong set of copyright laws, he, also, discusses how complicated copyright has gotten with new technology and with the many different parties now involved in copyright issues.

Article