Yeah, I'm a tad worried about this decision insofar as it sets up a potential circuit split between the 2nd and 9th on "right to control" -- how big of a split, we won't know until the District Court reads the tea leaves that've been handed to it. But it's slightly encouraging that the 2nd Circuit was only able to come up with a single example of circumstances that evince a right to control (though I'm perturbed as to where it wants Grokster to figure into the equation). Oh well. At least we got another nail in the coffin of red flag knowledge and the notion that it requires any less specificity than actual knowledge.
The problem is that ASCAP operates under a consent decree with the Justice Department (the result of antitrust wrangling many years ago). The government dictates many of the terms they operate under (from fees charged to licenses available) and presumably already knows about their disbursement methods. It was justified back in the day under technical limitations more than anything. However, new tracking technologies are going to make it possible to actually keep exact data on copyrighted performances (rather than the current "representative sample" nonsense) and send out payments accordingly. Companies like Music Reports are already leading the way on the licensing side. Now the rest of the industry needs to catch up.
You're thinking of a scenario where a private entity chooses not to give someone a forum. Any lawsuit against speech is inherently using the tools and force of the government to suppress speech, and thus a First Amendment issue.
The update actually makes sense to me. A first draft of a brief can often just be a giant authority dump, the point being that the reviewing attorney decides what raw material it's best to refine and focus the arguments on. If Ovadia just decided to throw that authority dump into a brief template, that's her fault.
I'm with you on the tiers. I just bought the special from Ansari, and he has his Twitter feed on the page, the most recent of which seems to be "Download the video, hit play, close your eyes. RT @calebteaches Is there any way to download an audio-only version of the special?" All jokes aside, why isn't that an option? Charge $3.00 for an audio-version of the special, or $1.00 if you've already bought the video. There are more aspects of these specials waiting to be monetized by savvy comedians, and more models waiting to be tried. I'm waiting for someone to release a special in 20-minute segments, and as enough people purchase each segment, the next one is unlocked for purchase. Have a 100-minute special, 5 segments, have each tier unlocked at 50,000 purchases, bring in at least $200k by the time the full special is unlocked (assuring a minimum level of pre-piracy monetization), and rewards are given to those who buy early (access to download the full, single-segment special, obviously, plus maybe bonus cuts). Come on, comedians. Show us your creativity off the stage!
Some copyright owners still haven't woken up to the fact that the general public now views the issue of copyright enforcement as an issue of equity. They don't care that you have a valid copyright claim if you're using it to extract millions of dollars from an elderly grandmother or six-year-old boy. Similarly, when you've got a pub that's been operating for two decades with no evidence of consumer confusion and a sizable client base endeared to it, just because they may have crossed some minor IP lines does not mean you won't be excoriated in the court of public opinion if you go about enforcing your rights the wrong way. And that'll cost you far more in the long-run than whatever license fees you forfeit by not playing hardball. Maybe this will encourage artists' estates to do a little bit more homework on their targets before they go rent-seeking.
I'm sure whatever PRO is active in that territory has already shaken them down for a license; those folks' ears prick up the instant any public venue is established.
Only trademark. It's well-established in copyright law that names and short titles are simply too insubstantial to satisfy the requisite threshold of creativity that engenders copyright protection (which, while generally deemed to be quite low, simply isn't that low).
No, names and titles can't be covered by copyright (they're simply too short). The copyright issue here is not over the LotR character names, but their likenesses as used in the decor of the pub. You could use the names all you want, so long as they're not used in commerce in a manner that implies endorsement by the trademark holder or is likely to confuse consumers. This is almost never an issue with band names (ex: Atreyu, named after a character from The NeverEnding Story).
No smart IP lawyer sleeps on a claim because they think it's unlikely to be a threat. If they ignored it and it became an issue later, they could be estopped from pursuing a claim under a statute of limitations or laches. So I don't blame them for taking some sort of action. But I do blame them for being hamfisted about it.
No smart IP lawyer sleeps on a claim because they think it's unlikely to be a threat. If they ignored it and it became an issue later, they could be estopped from pursuing a claim under a statute of limitations or laches. So I don't blame them for taking some sort of action. But I do blame them for being hamfisted about it.
Article says this fight is copyright-based. That means it's over the copyrighted characters being used, not the name of the business (a trademark issue). Ergo, the pub won't have to change its name, unless there's an unreported trademark claim being pursued as well.
I actually have to agree. If it was just the name and general Tolkien vibe, I'd call it stupid. If they're actively using the characters and even images of the film cast, it crosses over from tribute to near-implied endorsement, and would definitely hamper any future use of Tolkien's IP. But the SMART thing to do here would be to just license the use for a reasonable to nominal amount, if only so they can't be accused of sleeping on their rights, while not seeming like bullies for doing so.
Try reading the court's order. It's even excerpted in the post for you.
While Righthaven has argued now that it does not have more than the bare right to sue, as this Court previously held, Righthaven does possess copyright registrations that can be assigned by operation of law.
Whatever they have, however (in)substantial, it's being auctioned.
“The irony of this? Perhaps those who buy the copyrights could issue DMCA notices to the Review-Journal stopping them from redistributing them?” Randazza said via an e-mail, citing the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
On the one hand, I love the proper application of liability.
On the other hand, I despise StubHub.
Too often in my life do I miss out on the sale of concert tickets by five minutes, only to find them being immediately scalped on StubHub for at least three times their face value. I know that if it weren't on StubHub, it would be somewhere else, but goddammit, still makes my blood boil.
(I wish more acts would have integrity and go paperless. Then I could watch StubHub burn and have Section 230 remain unperverted.)
Seems like a parallel to the Feist case here in the US. The Supreme Court said that you can copyright a phonebook, but not for its raw data, only the particular selection and arrangement of the data (and even then, only if that selection and arrangement is sufficiently creative).
Vinyl sales dropping? How reality-challenged are you?
Now look at this statistic here on global Vinyl disc sales! It has been steadily decreasing for the past 10 years!
Wait, what? Vinyl sales been RISING over the last few years. The BBC just reported a six-year high. Last year, Rolling Stone was all over the vinyl revival and noted that "[t]hough overall album sales dropped 13 percent in 2010, sales of vinyl increased by 14 percent over the previous year, with around 2.8 million units sold" -- a new record for vinyl sales since 1991, when the format basically dropped off the face of the earth.
So, no. Vinyl sales have not been steadily decreasing for a decade. Quite the opposite.
On the post: Viacom Didn't Actually 'Win' Against YouTube, But The Appeals Court Ruling Is Still Dangerous
On the post: How ASCAP Takes Money From Successful Indie Artists And Gives It To Giant Rock Stars
Re:
On the post: Lindsay Lohan's Lawyer's Loopy Legal Argument Laced With Lifted Language?
Re: What she should do is
On the post: Lindsay Lohan's Lawyer's Loopy Legal Argument Laced With Lifted Language?
Re: Update added
On the post: More Comedians Following Louis CK's Path... But They Don't Need To Copy It Exactly
On the post: UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Offered License In Attempt To Stem PR Disaster
On the post: UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Offered License In Attempt To Stem PR Disaster
Re:
On the post: Decades-Old UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Threatened With Legal Action For Infringing On Hobbit IP
Re: Re: Re: Re: Big Bullying Small
On the post: Decades-Old UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Threatened With Legal Action For Infringing On Hobbit IP
Re: Re: Re: Big Bullying Small
On the post: Decades-Old UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Threatened With Legal Action For Infringing On Hobbit IP
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Decades-Old UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Threatened With Legal Action For Infringing On Hobbit IP
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Decades-Old UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Threatened With Legal Action For Infringing On Hobbit IP
Re: Re:
On the post: Decades-Old UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Threatened With Legal Action For Infringing On Hobbit IP
Re: Re:
On the post: Decades-Old UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Threatened With Legal Action For Infringing On Hobbit IP
Re: Big Bullying Small
On the post: Decades-Old UK Pub 'The Hobbit' Threatened With Legal Action For Infringing On Hobbit IP
Re:
On the post: Whatever Copyrights Righthaven Might Actually Have Owned Now Transferred To Receiver For Auction
Re:
On the post: Whatever Copyrights Righthaven Might Actually Have Owned Now Transferred To Receiver For Auction
On the post: State Appeals Court Says Stubhub Isn't Responsible For Actions Of Its Users
On the other hand, I despise StubHub.
Too often in my life do I miss out on the sale of concert tickets by five minutes, only to find them being immediately scalped on StubHub for at least three times their face value. I know that if it weren't on StubHub, it would be somewhere else, but goddammit, still makes my blood boil.
(I wish more acts would have integrity and go paperless. Then I could watch StubHub burn and have Section 230 remain unperverted.)
On the post: EU Court Ruling Saying Sports Schedules May Not Covered By Copyright Pushes Back On Dangerous Database Copyrights
On the post: RIAA Insists That, Really, The Music Industry Is Collapsing; Reality Shows It's Just The RIAA That's Collapsing
Vinyl sales dropping? How reality-challenged are you?
Wait, what? Vinyl sales been RISING over the last few years. The BBC just reported a six-year high. Last year, Rolling Stone was all over the vinyl revival and noted that "[t]hough overall album sales dropped 13 percent in 2010, sales of vinyl increased by 14 percent over the previous year, with around 2.8 million units sold" -- a new record for vinyl sales since 1991, when the format basically dropped off the face of the earth.
So, no. Vinyl sales have not been steadily decreasing for a decade. Quite the opposite.
Next >>