DB’s Techdirt Profile

On the post: Once Again, Dead Content Creators Seem To Sign A Lot Of Pro-Stronger Copyright Petitions

DB ( profile ), 26 Sep, 2010 @ 11:47am

Petition Signatures

Those of us familiar with Chicago politics don't find anything surprising about the dead signing petitions. What's more surprising is that someone actually relies on them.

On the post: French Courts Fine eBay For Buying Typo Keywords

DB ( profile ), 16 Feb, 2010 @ 05:30am

Explain to me ...

Why exactly is it that Google or Ebay should be able to make more money than most countries by selling someone else's name?

On the post: German Publishers Go After Google; Apparently Very Confused About How The Internet Works

DB ( profile ), 20 Jan, 2010 @ 05:49am

Rankings as Opinions

There are a lot of other issues, but I think the comment that Google can place things in any order they want is not supportable. They may be able to keep their algorithms confidential, they may be able to organize their space in a lot of different ways, and they may be able to peddle lots of things, but they don't have a right to mislead people. There was once a Hit Parade case where radio stations (or a radio station) broadcast rankings of songs based on music sales. It was touted as accurate, but turned out was simply fabricated. The same applies to Google -- if the tout their listings/rankings as accurate they should be accurate.

On the post: Couple Claims That Merely Talking About A Photo Is Copyright Infringement

DB ( profile ), 16 Jan, 2010 @ 05:48am

Interesting Theory, Bad Example

With defenses like merger of idea and expression, it's hard to imaging that describing a photograph verbally, in a newspaper, rises to making an infringing expression.
But -- suppose one described it with symbols for 0 and 1, going line-by-line, or pixel by pixel, until the entire content is reduced in writing to a series of 0s and 1s? That could be seen as a "written" "derivative work"?

On the post: The Value Of Free As Analyzed By The Pizza Industry

DB ( profile ), 16 Jan, 2010 @ 05:37am

Pizza Marketing

I live in Chicago, so I won't buy from Pizza Hut or other pizza chains because are many purveyors of real pizza. I've seen Papa Johns commercials, too, and I've seen Little Caesar's storefronts. It seems that the tradition among local pizzerias has always been to give coupons -- save 12 coupons, get 1 small pizza free. Is that what the chains do?
And -- for the commentator who wonders what "free" has to do with online content -- isn't that exactly what has been discussed in the context of bands offering samples "free" in order to get purchaser's to buy a whole disk?

On the post: Among The Clips That Viacom Sued Google Over, About 100 Were Uploaded By Viacom Itself

DB ( profile ), 31 Dec, 2009 @ 07:32am

63000 - 200 = 62800.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the Complaint and am only reacting to what's reported here.
Usually the rants here blame the lawyers. Here it seems justified -- although I'm not sure which lawyers, and maybe, again, it's the client who's really to blame.
If an outside lawyer signed a Complaint alleged there were 63000 infringing videos and there were only 62800 it's not true. If his/her client provided the list, they may be to blame, but he/she is responsible. And he/she needed to check with the client to make sure what's in the Complaint is true.
Some bonehead thought they'd make a dramatic splash by alleging 63000 -- maybe the outside lawyer, maybe the inhouse lawyer, maybe an executive at the client. If you're going for the drama, you need to get it right. Better to be right than dramatic.

On the post: Arbitrators Says Groovle Not Confusingly Similar To Google

DB ( profile ), 31 Dec, 2009 @ 06:41am

Ha Ha, But What About Google

Is there anyone who thinks that Google may has a potential problem with its name when people make it a verb and use it synonymous with "search the Internet"? Go up the Escalator with your Thermos and take an Aspirin after your Shredded Wheat?

On the post: Clothing Company Sues CBC Over Copyrights For Taping A Fashion Show

DB ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2009 @ 08:38am

Not sure about Canadian law.
But it wasn't the recording that was copied, was it? It was the live "action"? Now a play can be copyrighted, as can dance choreography, but can simple directions -- wear this and walk this way?
I tried to register something kind of analogous for a client -- a carefully planned opening "procession" for a sporting event. The (US) copyright application was rejected because the only choreography permitted in the deposit was recognized dance notations. They wouldn't accept a video of the procession.

On the post: Ursula K. Le Guin Resigns From Authors Guild, Because It Didn't Keep Up Its Silly Fight With Google

DB ( profile ), 26 Dec, 2009 @ 08:31am

Sigh of relief ...

At least it looks like this one can be blamed on the client, not the lawyer ...

On the post: Scottish Football Tries To Fine Kid For Filming Amateur Games

DB ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2009 @ 08:44am

Copyright

Not sure about Scotland, but in the US copyright exists from fixation in a tangible medium of expression. Taping or recording fixes the copyright in the tape, recording, etc., but not the live action. There was a parade case a few years back -- broadcasting by one station was not infringed by a competitor independently shooting and also broadcasting.
Pro leagues (and big-bucks universities) can control recording because there is controlled access to the stadium. As part of your "contract" in getting a ticket, you're not supposed to record. That's the difference v. the parade. The parade was on the street.

On the post: NBC, Defender Of All Things Copyright, Copies Blogger's Post Without Permission; Removes Her Name When She Complains

DB ( profile ), 20 Dec, 2009 @ 08:18am

Lessons from the Past

ABC did a similar thing 30 or 40 years ago when they had the Olympics. They wanted to do a spot on wrestler Dan Gable and used a college bio documentary done by students at Iowa State. They negotiated a license of a couple of hundred dollars, but then told the students they couldn't pay because it wasn't in the budged. They used portions of the documentary anyway. Same attitude different medium?

On the post: Can You Copyright An SQL Query?

DB ( profile ), 08 Dec, 2009 @ 06:24am

Thanks, Doc, & My Look at the Practical

About two of the posts accurately analyzed the issue, the last being Doctor Strange. So here's my take: (1) if it's an original work it's probably copyrightable, so (a) if the programmer wrote it from scratch, or wrote it with permission, it is probably copyrighted; (2) it can't be enforced until there is a registration so (a) the programmer has to pay the registration fee and (b) submit a "deposit"; (c) if no deposit, then no registration (if this "work" is on the school's computer only, how's he going to get it?); (3) if it's not registered already, it may be impossible for him to get statutory damages; (4) for there to be infringement there also has to be taking of a substantial portion of the copyrighted expression, if it's copyrightable, it may be a weak copyright, it's only protectable to the extent it is original e.g. didn't come from somewhere else; (5) all cases can have an attack on validity, so the defense could show merger (idea and expression are so connected it is not copyrightable) or it is simply an uncopyrightable "short word or phrase" or was procured by fraud (programmer really took it from somewhere else) etc. (6) there is fee shifting in the case of a frivolous case so the programmer might end up paying the other side's attorneys fees. So, as a practical matter, the system has enough barriers to a frivolous case, it's not that much of a problem, is it?

On the post: Pay-For-Delay Agreements Again Show How Pharma Abuses Patent Law To Harm Us All

DB ( profile ), 07 Dec, 2009 @ 07:20pm

Illegal As Defined, Not If Good Faith & Reasonable

An awfully large number of the comments have conclusions built in. If we are given it is a frivolous lawsuit, then yes, it's illegal. But if there is a good faith claim for patent infringement, then it's illegal if it is unreasonable.
So, if we take the initial comment as presuming frivolity, then there's no analytical problem, is there? It's illegal. So the DOJ and FTC and competitors have a case.
See In re Cardizem CD Antitrust Litigation (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., and Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc.) 332 F.3d 896 (6th Cir 2003) Schering-Plough Corp. v. F.T.C. 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir 2005) In re Ciprofloxacin Hydrochloride Antitrust Litigation, 544 F.3d 1323 (C.A. Fed., Oct. 15, 2008) In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, 429 F.3d 370, 77 USPQ2d 1705 (2d Cir. 2005)

On the post: Jury Says Fictional Character Can Be Libelous

DB ( profile ), 25 Nov, 2009 @ 05:44am

Fictionalization

Fictionalization cases actually have been around for years. It seems to be a more common issue in right of privacy/publicity cases. The key is whether there is enough detail for there to be identification, despite changing the name.
And I wonder -- does anyone really believe disclaimers?

On the post: Sneaky Way To Get Past Section 230 Safe Harbors To Force Content Offline

DB ( profile ), 13 Nov, 2009 @ 08:54am

Is Anonymity Part of the Problem?

Are these case where the identity of the author is known, the author is served and they don't care about the content enough to defend, so they default?
Or are these cases where "John Doe" complaints have to be drafted because the poster of the content did so anonymously, so he/she can't be identified?
If the second, if it's a "john doe" but instead the poster of the content used their name and took responsibility, they'd be served and be able to defend, right?
Maybe the rules for in rem domain cases indicate a useful approach -- you can't file an in rem case unless you can't serve the real person.

On the post: Microsoft Patents Changing User Privileges Temporarily On The Fly

DB ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 06:32am

Actually ask those skilled in the art to weigh in on it.

1. Aren't those called witnesses? And don't they regularly "weigh in on" obviousness in trials? So we already have that.
2. If you mean the PTO should take a survey before issuing a patent, among other flaws, wouldn't you think MS has enough money to rig the survey? Look at the number of inventors they named.
3. Maybe the oppositions in the patent reform bills would provide a better forum.
Oh wait, isn't MS one of the biggest ones complaining about trolls? Actually, who's on which side here?

On the post: Nobel Prize Winning Scientists Say Federally Funded Research Should Be Available Free Online

DB ( profile ), 12 Nov, 2009 @ 06:03am

Maybe if they were encouraged to file patent apps?

Maybe if they were encouraged to file patent applications, the information would become public?

On the post: BMW Trying To Patent Technological Problem Solving

DB ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2009 @ 06:03am

Not Patented

Does anyone remember the scene in It's A Wonderful Life where young George Bailey struck a cigarette lighter in Mr. Gower's drug store and said "I wish I had a million dollars"?
He didn't get the millions dollars just because he wished it.
And the BMW patent application's ridiculous claim 1 has not been allowed just because they wished it.

On the post: Does Bluebeat Actually Have A Legal Basis For Its Claim Of Copyright Over Beatles' Songs?

DB ( profile ), 11 Nov, 2009 @ 05:34am

Sound Recording May Depend on Medium

I'm not sure on the medium here -- in terms of how the new "recording" actually operates to push electrons around so that sound comes out somewhere -- but I have seen the Copyright Office take the position that a compilation of MIDI files was not a sound recording, it had to be registered as computer software. So sometimes there could be a first sound recording but not a second sound recording, for exemption purposes?

On the post: UK Law Firm Sets Up Special Team To Hunt Down Anonymous Commenters

DB ( profile ), 06 Nov, 2009 @ 05:48am

Assumptions & Legitimacy

I've only heard about UK libel laws -- as much from the Leon Uris book as anything else. But there also seems to be a tone that anonymous posters should be permitted to say anything they want. As I understand it, libel only applies to statements of fact, and not opinion, and truth is still a defense. If so, anonymous, or identified, posters are free to state opinions -- not facts -- and if facts are posted, then stick to the truth. If the posting is just a rant, I don't see that it accomplishes much.
For whistleblowers, I don't know enough about UK law. Certainly there have been abuses. Scientologists, for example, filed a bunch of lawsuits when their procedure manual became public. I don't remember how it ended on the copyright issue, but they couldn't claw back the truth.
And what about nuts? It may be bad PR to file a lot of suits (look at the record industry) but there are certainly some boneheaded rumors out there. Procter & Gamble is satanist because of their logo? Hogwash, promulgated by nuts, but persistent. Urban legends abound and if they cause harm to a reputation, I don't see a huge problem in gathering facts using proper means. As to what they do with the facts, it sounds like everybody's guessing. There may be dozens of reasons to decide to not sue, but until you have the background facts, you don't get to that decision.

DB 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (42)