I found this site discussing the difference between copyright, trademarks, and patents. I found it interesting because each of these things are much different that I had originally thought them to be. I also found it funny that patents do not last as long as do copyrights. If you ask me, I think that patents should last longer because I feel that inventing something is the most solid, original idea that can be produced.
I went into the play with a copyright mindset, due to it being a requirement for class. Now, due to it’s age, copyright law does not apply to the original. Due to that, I have seen many variations on the several stories, as well as the play on a whole. The ad lib section was especially interesting, as within the play itself, there could be multiple incarnations. As brought up in class, the “copyright” regarding ad lib was a bit confusing. While the play itself has no copyright, the variations and ideas in others can be copyrighted. On a deeper level, while the concept of ad lib can be a copyrighted concept, the actual ad lib used can be considered the property of the actor. In the end, I find it interesting that a work that does not have copyright can still be surrounded and pressured by it.
The article above got me thinking about how to enforce copyright laws. It seems to be that it is exceedingly difficult to catch people pirating media including music, movies and tv shows on the internet. This is probably why it has increased, because citizens are becoming more proficient with technology. I can;t think of a way to actually monitor people pirating technology but i do think increasing the penalty if they are caught could help. This is yet another aspect to copyright that needs to be discussed.
I recently stumbled across an article discussing an artist who sued twitter over copyright issues. The artist, Christopher Boffoli, sued twitter because the “company refused to take down copies of his artwork uploaded to Twitter by its users”. Buffoli had contacted twitter regarding the issue, and they simply ignored his requests and did not do anything about it. I think that this shows how many large companies abuse the rights of authors for their own personal gain. Twitter obviously did not care about the author’s request, and simply ignored it thinking that it would not escalate any further and that they could get away with not doing the extra work of taking it down. However, Buffoli did end up winning the case. I think based on our readings that Goldstein would applaud Boffoli for not allowing twitter to do what they wish with his work.
The news clip above that talks about eBooks in libraries hadn’t struck me yet and brings up a whole set of copyright questions. Before this video I hadn’t though of the impact that eBooks could have on a mass scale such as libraries. The video describes the many benefits of this but didn’t mention a few that I was thinking of. This way members of the library wouldn’t have to physically go to the library to check out and return books they could simply get them online. Also books would never be late because they are deleted from the device automatically. There are many benefits to this and the statistic that says 75 percent of libraries now do this means it’s catching on. I personally didn’t know that libraries did this and will now look for it at my own public library.
This also creates copyright problems though. As the video mentioned certain publishers don’t allow for their works to be used in library eBooks. I am not sure if they don’t allow their works to be published on eBooks at all or just for libraries but i can see why. Maybe it’s because I don’t have enough knowledge of it but I don’t see why on an iPad while borrowing a book from a library the person borrowing could simply take pictures of all the pages and keep them from good. Another copyright problem is there are no laws for this type of thing yet. It is unexplored legal territory and I am curious to see what happens.
The blog prompt relates to what my group and I are going to write our paper about which is the topic explained below. The Verve (a band) followed protocol to use a few chords from a Rolling Stones song to make their own song. The Verve’s song became a hit and then the Rolling Stones sued because the Verve apparently used more chords than they said they would. This led a lawsuit that stripped the Verve of 100% of the earnings of their hit song that was extremely succesful and popular.
This shows how strict and controversial copyright can be. My personal opinion about this is beginning to be split. While I maintain that copyright is of utmost importance and could produce negatives like this example it creates more positives. However, I believe that it could change some so that situations like this do not occur. Vaidhyanathen would most likely side with the Verve on this issue. she would most likely say that the Verve should get credit for their song even though they used a sound from another artist.
http://www.thevervelive.com/2005/05/bitter-sweet-symphony-controversy-and.html
Within this past week, US anime licencing company Funimation dealt with this incident.
At a convention, counterfeit products were knowingly made and sold, for which Funimation filed a lawsuit. This could be seen as breaking copyright for very clear reasons. They did not have permission to create and make profit from series which were licensed. At conventions, many products are sold that are bought from overseas, or made by con goers in artist’s alley. But these products were made by the convention’s organizer’s company. It would have been less prominent if it were small maker, but because it was by a company, Funimation took notice.
Vaidhyanathan would most likely argue against Funimation’s claim, with his policy of a less strict copyright law. He would state that the creation of the counterfeit products would be an expression of art, and artist’s alley as evidence, they should be allowed to make products.
It is interesting to look at these 2 websites, the first with a positive view of the public domain and the second being more negative. It is interesting that several well known works would have been added to the public domain this year. Do you think that Congress made the right decision in extending the length for a book to enter the public domain?
I thought the performance was really well done. The set was beautiful and they really did a great job of telling the story within the story within the story. I also feel that a lot of that is due in part to the set, lighting, music, and choreography. I found myself lost in what was happening and that can be hard for me to do with theatre productions. Our class discussion got me thinking about all of the theatre productions I was in during high school and how every production was so different. I was in Seussical in community theatre and then our high school decided to put it on my senior year. A lot of us wanted to do choreography we had previously learned but we weren’t allowed to. I had never thought about protecting the choreography and sets. Every part of theatre is so unique and I had never really considered who has the rights to certain elements of the production.
In this case, Lenz v, Universal Music Corp, Stephanie Lanz decided to sue Universal for asking YouTube to take down a video of he son dancing to “Let’s Go Crazy” by Prince. Universal accused Lenz of copyright infringement. This case was originally settled in 2008 but it has come back to the courts. It was never completely clear if Universal sent Lenz a notice to take down the video before appropriately considering fair use. Universal does not think Lenz has appropriate evidence but a judge just ruled against a countersuit.
The case made me think about videos on the internet of little kids singing or dancing to music in the background. It never occurred to me that it could be seen as a violation of copyright laws. It seems like videos like this are put on the internet all the time so why did Universal see this as such a threat?