Fair Punishment?

Another case I discussed in my paper was Capitol Records v Jammie Thomas-Rasset. The label sued a Montana mother for illegally downloading songs via a file sharing service. The case went to trial a first time where Thomas-Rasset lost, then later went to trial again in an attempt to appeal. The punishment and damages were not reversed, they were more harsh! The defendant was sentenced to paying $80,000 per song she downloaded illegally. Do you think the punishment fits the crime in this case?

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars

Kanye West Sued for Copyright Infringement

This article was one of which I discussed in my presentation on digital downloading and sampling. In this article it outlines that Kanye West was sued by a 1980s producer who claimed that Kanye stole the track for his hit "Good Life" from D' Mystro's 1984 song, "Volume of the Good Life". The case is a very interesting copyright infringement case. The plaintiff failed to prove that Kanye had access to the original work to copy it, and also failed to prove substantial similarity between the two songs as they were not close enough to each other to confuse a reasonable person.

http://www.marylandiplaw.com/2008/04/articles/copyrights/maryland-ip-litigation-2008-lawsuit-summary-no-20/

More on School Rights

I'm fascinated by student rights v. the rights of a school, and of course, as with everything else, the online territory has turned the world upside down. Following the Missouri case of cyber-bullying, in LA another case cropped up involved cyber-bullying and the suspension of the bully. The bully then filed a Federal court case protesting that her rights have been violated. So far, the courts are on her side.

Read more here.

Abreadcrumb & Fish

This article made me laugh. There's a bit of a ruckus in the off-brand t-shirt business. It seems as though in an effort to comment on culture, many small shops have taken to producing Christian-themed parodies of famous brands, such as "iPray," "Abreadcrumb & Fish," and giving a nod to the social media world: "Jesus Christ Wants to Be Your Friend."

Although this seems to clearly fall under parody as far as copyright infringement goes, many trademark claims could be made, and if the big companies go after these smaller ones (if they can track them down), they have a clear shot at winning.

Regardless, some are amused and some are not, and some others may get a Christmas surprise this week, when they receive a hockey goalie jersey that says, "Jesus Saves!"

Check out the article here.

Chewing on Apple

This is an old article, but I stumbled upon it and thought it was interesting. Several years ago, the City of New York launched a green campaign with an apple design. Apple, Inc. claimed copyright infringement.

There's arguments of dilution and confusion - and ultimately, they say it's up to the consumer. Strangely, I wasn't aware of the survey technique listed in the article. Lawyers are hitting up consumers to see what they think of the logo, and will use that information to pursue a judgment in Court.

Here's the article.

D.C. family wins suit over raid on home;

In 2007, A family won lawsuit against the DC government that infringe their constitutional rights of privacy. Laura Elkins and John Robbins house that was under renovation raided after a complaint from the neighbor to the D.C. Historic Preservation Office in an attempt to revoke the permits. As a result they have to stop their renovation works that worth of 70 thousand dollar. According to the The Historic Preservation Office, the house renovation work where a sloped roof in the middle and rear of the house, is against D.C. Historic Landmark and Historic District Protection Act. Well,Elkins and her husband are professional architects. The plaintiff claim after designing the renovation, they submitted plans that were approved by the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs in 2001. They also had six building permits. In 2002 Ms. Elkins and her husband won their case in D.C. Superior Court when a judge determined that the permits were issued properly.
In 2003, a raid was conducted by about, twelve police officers and the DC consumer regulatory Affairs inspectors. They entered their bedrooms of their teenage children, searched drawers and carpet. The D.C. Historic Preservation Office then persuaded the District to obtain the search warrant and file a lawsuit before the D.C. Office of Administrative Hearings. The inspectors and police seized contracts, invoices and a notebook that contained permits, construction records and financial documents. Actually, their warrant allowed a search for proof that the reformation created "an imminent threat to the health, safety and welfare of the public”. The federal court did not argue whether the inspectors had "probable cause" to search the home. However the warrant did not authorize seizure of specific evidence. As the warrant did not specially state any documents to be seized, the seizure of the documents from the house was declared as outside scope and a violation of plaintiffs fourth Amendment rights. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer, of the U.S. District for the District of Columbia, ruled that the raid was an "unreasonable search and seizure" that violated the family's constitutional rights to privacy. Roger Marzulla attorney for Ms. Elkins and Mr. Robbins.said the search,was unconstitutional. He informed that the family would continue with their renovation, although their costs have increased considerably after six years of delays as the legal challenges increased. Mr. Marzulla commented that District officials have to obey the Constitution. The amount of damages the District should pay to them determined in a different trial. The case shows how officers can violate the power to infringe other people’s privacy life. This is the link to the stories
http://www.lexisnexis.com.library3.webster.edu/us/lnacademic/search/focusSearch.do?risb=21_T8185205746&pap=results_docview_DocumentRenderer&formStateKey=28_T8185205747&format=GNBFI&returnTo=20_T8185205748

Brokeback Mountain Effect

Privacy and the Internet have been hot topics over the past couple months. Yesterday a class action law suit was filed against Netflix for breaking privacy codes and releasing information about its users' preferences. In October, Netflix had a contest that offered $1 million to anybody who could come up with a way to improve its movie recommendation engine by 10%. Netflix opened the contest to the public and released data to participants about subscribers including political, sexual orientation and other sensitive information.

Researchers at the University of Texas published a paper "How to Break Anonymity of the Netflix Prize Dataset" comparing ratings on Netflix with IMB. The lawsuit was filed by a group of individuals lead by a women who is only identified as a lesbian, who believe that now due to the exposure of this data, the idea that anyone who has the movie in their queue is more likely to be homosexual. This issues raises question of privacy issues and whether or not the data you submit is really anonymous or not.

Read Full Article: http://www.thresq.com/2009/12/facebook-netflix-privacy-complaint.html